-
MADDIE 'LIE' BATTLE Madeleine McCann’s parents Kate and Gerry make final appeal in battle against shameless ex-police chief
The McCanns have been fighting a lengthy legal battle against Goncarlo Amaral after he wrote a book suggesting they were responsible for the 2007 abduction and 'death' of their daughter.
(http://i.imgur.com/CumYM2C.jpg?1)
By Nick Pisa
Published on 9th September 2017
MADDIE McCann’s parents have made a last ditch appeal to the European Court of Human Rights after a Portuguese judge ruled against them in their battle against a shameless ex police chief.
Kate and Gerry McCann, both 49, have been fighting a lengthy legal battle against Goncarlo Amaral after he wrote a book suggesting they were responsible for the abduction and ‘’death’’ of their daughter in 2007.
Madeleine McCann's parents have been fighting a legal battle against an ex-cop who claimed they were responsible for her daughter's abduction
The case has been in and out of court in Portugal with Amaral initially being ordered to pay £360,000 damaged in 2015 for the outrageous slurs in ‘The Truth of the Lie’.
But his legal team overturned that order and Kate and Gerry took out their own appeal against him in Portugal’s Supreme Court and earlier this year they were left devastated after judges again ruled in his favour.
In their 76 page ruling judges said Kate and Gerry had not ‘’successfully proved their innocence’’ - which left the couple from Rothley, Leicestershire ‘shattered’, according to a source close to the couple.
Initially they had considered dropping the whole case against Amaral they are more determined than ever that he should not get away with his vile allegations against them.
So far no money has been paid by either party and now they will square up to each other at the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg.
The appeal was lodged in July by their Portuguese lawyer Isabel Duarte and they are now waiting for a date to be confirmed.
Gerry and Kate McCann have made a last ditch appeal to the European Court of Human Rights after a Portuguese judge ruled against them.
A source close to the couple said: "They discussed the situation with their legal team and they decided that ultimately it was worth fighting the decision of the Portuguese court.
"They are upset that the court made this ruling but are also desperately upset at Amaral’s claims which are ludicrous and hurtful.’’
Last night the European Court of Human Rights confirmed an appeal had been lodged and officials were investigating its "admissibility’’ before deciding what to do next.
Family spokesman Clarence Mitchell told The Sun: "I can confirm that Kate and Gerry have lodged an appeal application at the European Court of Human Rights and the application is being considered.
Goncarlo Amaral's legal team overturned an order for him to pay £360,000 damaged in 2015 for the outrageous slurs in ‘The Truth of the Lie'
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/4425917/madeleine-mccann-kate-gerry-goncarlo-amaral/#comments
1998
-
As we know, the case against Amaral is over.
I predicted they wouldn't pay up, as have others.
They cannot take Amaral to the E.C.H.R., it is the state of Portugal.
This has now become totally ridiculous, I.M.H.O. of course.
The Sun, surprise, surprise, has LIED in it's headlines, saying ........
' they were responsible for the 2007 abduction and 'death' of their daughter '
-
I think what is more interesting is the timing of the announcement. If this was submitted in July, why wait until now to announce it? Obviously an ongoing court case wouldn't hurt the SY appeal for more funding.
-
As we know, the case against Amaral is over.
I predicted they wouldn't pay up, as have others.
They cannot take Amaral to the E.C.H.R., it is the state of Portugal.
This has now become totally ridiculous, I.M.H.O. of course.
The Sun, surprise, surprise, has LIED in it's headlines, saying ........
' they were responsible for the 2007 abduction and 'death' of their daughter '
You took the quote out of context. "The McCanns have been fighting a lengthy legal battle against Goncarlo Amaral after he wrote a book suggesting they were responsible for the 2007 abduction and 'death' of their daughter."
-
I think what is more interesting is the timing of the announcement. If this was submitted in July, why wait until now to announce it? Obviously an ongoing court case wouldn't hurt the SY appeal for more funding.
Good point Slarti.
Also, it just seems a month or so ago, I believe it was reported that the McCann's weren't going to the E.C.H.R.
-
You took the quote out of context. "The McCanns have been fighting a lengthy legal battle against Goncarlo Amaral after he wrote a book suggesting they were responsible for the 2007 abduction and 'death' of their daughter."
Have you forgotten this, from the Sun Rob ?
'MADDIE CONSPIRACY COPWho is Goncalo Amaral? Ex-Madeleine McCann cop who claims Kate and Gerry killed their daughter
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/2751442/goncalo-amaral-madeleine-mccann-kate-gerry/
That's LIBEL Rob. He said no such thing.
-
Here we are..........
From the Sun itself.
“Realistically a European Court appeal was never going to succeed plus it would be too expensive to launch. It seems Mr Amaral, regrettably, has won once and for all. The fight is finally over."
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/3996381/madeleine-mccanns-parents-kate-and-gerry-have-failed-in-their-battle-to-silence-ex-portuguese-cop-over-sick-slurs/
So who is telling LIES ?
-
Of course it makes no difference to the ruling of the Supreme Court or their debt which they seemingly haven't paid.
The Court does not act as a court of appeal in relation to national courts; it does not rehear cases, it cannot quash, vary or revise their decisions.
http://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/Questions_Answers_ENG.pdf
The newspaper could have made an effort to get Amaral's name right; Goncarlo Amaral.
-
Have you forgotten this, from the Sun Rob ?
'MADDIE CONSPIRACY COPWho is Goncalo Amaral? Ex-Madeleine McCann cop who claims Kate and Gerry killed their daughter
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/2751442/goncalo-amaral-madeleine-mccann-kate-gerry/
That's LIBEL Rob. He said no such thing.
Quote
There are two major types of innuendo. The first is false innuendo. It is a defamatory statement made that has an implied meaning, so only individuals who have the necessary contextual knowledge can appreciate and understand that the comment is defamatory. This may require some sort of cultural, geographic information.
There is also legal innuendo. While this is not defamatory on its face, a legal innuendo statement can be defamatory when combined with certain extrinsic or outside circumstances. This contextual information may cause a statement to be considered defamatory in a certain jurisdiction while not another.
When looking at legal precedent, strict liability rule is applied to legal innuendo. This is the standard level of liability that specifies what makes an individually legally responsible. Strict liability requires imposing liability on a particular party without finding a reason for the fault, such as tortious intent or negligence. In this situation, the defendant must have been proved to be responsible and that the torn in question did happen.
http://defamation.laws.com/innuendo
It will be interesting to see how it all turns out in the European Court.
I particularly await with interest what I believe to have been the abrogation of the McCann human rights as outlined by the Portuguese appeal court judges.
I never thought they were entitled to say what they said in their conclusions to a civil case.
There you have it Stephen.
I don't think he had to say it. I think he only had to imply it ... and goodness gracious me hasn't he worked overtime at that one ... much more so than Sally Bercow's one tweet ... http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-22652083
-
Quote
There are two major types of innuendo. The first is false innuendo. It is a defamatory statement made that has an implied meaning, so only individuals who have the necessary contextual knowledge can appreciate and understand that the comment is defamatory. This may require some sort of cultural, geographic information.
There is also legal innuendo. While this is not defamatory on its face, a legal innuendo statement can be defamatory when combined with certain extrinsic or outside circumstances. This contextual information may cause a statement to be considered defamatory in a certain jurisdiction while not another.
When looking at legal precedent, strict liability rule is applied to legal innuendo. This is the standard level of liability that specifies what makes an individually legally responsible. Strict liability requires imposing liability on a particular party without finding a reason for the fault, such as tortious intent or negligence. In this situation, the defendant must have been proved to be responsible and that the torn in question did happen.
http://defamation.laws.com/innuendo
It will be interesting to see how it all turns out in the European Court.
I particularly await with interest what I believe to have been the abrogation of the McCann human rights as outlined by the Portuguese appeal court judges.
I never thought they were entitled to say what they said in their conclusions to a civil case.
There you have it Stephen.
I don't think he had to say it. I think he only had to imply it ... and goodness gracious me hasn't he worked overtime at that one ... much more so than Sally Bercow's one tweet ... http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-22652083
If you really think the McCann's have had their human rights impinged, I find that quite laughable.
it was Madeleine's right to be protected, by her parents and guardians.
In which they failed abjectly.
Sally Bercow, by the way is OFF TOPIC.
-
Have you forgotten this, from the Sun Rob ?
'MADDIE CONSPIRACY COPWho is Goncalo Amaral? Ex-Madeleine McCann cop who claims Kate and Gerry killed their daughter
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/2751442/goncalo-amaral-madeleine-mccann-kate-gerry/
That's LIBEL Rob. He said no such thing.
It is the headlines
-
It is the headlines
It is ALSO LIBEL Rob.
-
If you really think the McCann's have had their human rights impinged, I find that quite laughable.
it was Madeleine's rights to be protected, by her parents and guardians.
In which they failed abjectly.
Sally Bercow, by the way is OFF TOPIC.
Right from the start of the year when you and and others have been crowing about the Portuguese judges doing so, it has been my firm belief that their judgement denied the McCann right to the presumption of innocence which is enshrined in law. It will be interesting to see if the European Court agrees with me on that one ... or with you.
-
Tune in next decade to find out.
-
Right from the start of the year when you and and others have been crowing about the Portuguese judges doing so, it has been my firm belief that their judgement denied the McCann right to the presumption of innocence which is enshrined in law. It will be interesting to see if the European Court agrees with me on that one ... or with you.
They first have to, accept the case.
...and it won't be against Amaral, either.
Meanwhile i anticipate action against the McCann's by the Portuguese, as they have not paid up after the Supreme Court Judgement.
Tell me Brietta, how do you defend the McCann's failure to look after Madeleine's human rights ?
-
They first have to, accept the case.
...and it won't be against Amaral, either.
Meanwhile i anticipate action against the McCann's by the Portuguese, as they have not paid up after the Supreme Court Judgement.
Tell me Brietta, how do you defend the McCann's failure to look after Madeleine's human rights ?
That's certainly true. None of this will affect the existing court decisions.
-
That's certainly true. None of this will affect the existing court decisions.
Precisely.
It is all pie in the sky and par for the McCann'S trying yet again, delaying tactics.
TIME THEY PAID UP WHAT THEY OWE.
-
Is it known for certain that they haven't paid all the costs they are liable for ?
-
Is it known for certain that they haven't paid all the costs they are liable for ?
Well, according to the Sun, NO.
Then, the Sun is well known to be full of you know what. 8)--))
-
They first have to, accept the case.
...and it won't be against Amaral, either.
Meanwhile i anticipate action against the McCann's by the Portuguese, as they have not paid up after the Supreme Court Judgement.
Tell me Brietta, how do you defend the McCann's failure to look after Madeleine's human rights ?
Can't you see it? There is a 50/50 chance that Madeleine is dead ... there is a 50/50 chance that Madeleine is alive ... or at the least she was on the 4th May 2007.
Her parents are going with the 50/50 that she is alive ... and have insisted on searching for her based on that ... which has resulted in evidence being uncovered which justified British and Portuguese authorities reopening Madeleine's case.
Amaral has insisted as we now know from his book, from the moment when he opened his eyes on the morning of 4th May 2007, that Madeleine died in the apartment and her parents were complicit in that and hiding her body.
Nobody looks for a dead child and the search for her body proved redundant provoking all sorts of wild allegations from Amaral then and over the years intervening.
Therefore it is self evident that Madeleine's parents have been fighting for over ten years to protect her human right as a missing child ... to be looked for.
-
Well, according to the Sun, NO.
Then, the Sun is well known to be full of you know what. 8)--))
Indeed it is.
quote from Sun
"So far no money has been paid by either party and now they will square up to each other at the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg."
Utter rubbish. Amaral has nothing to to with any case at the ECHR
-
Can't you see it? There is a 50/50 chance that Madeleine is dead ... there is a 50/50 chance that Madeleine is alive ... or at the least she was on the 4th May 2007.
Her parents are going with the 50/50 that she is alive ... and have insisted on searching for her based on that ... which has resulted in evidence being uncovered which justified British and Portuguese authorities reopening Madeleine's case.
Amaral has insisted as we now know from his book, from the moment when he opened his eyes on the morning of 4th May 2007, that Madeleine died in the apartment and her parents were complicit in that and hiding her body.
Nobody looks for a dead child and the search for her body proved redundant provoking all sorts of wild allegations from Amaral then and over the years intervening.
Therefore it is self evident that Madeleine's parents have been fighting for over ten years to protect her human right as a missing child ... to be looked for.
50:50 ?
Yet NOT ONE TRACE OF HER, in the real world.
When did the McCann's last look for her.
In my opinion, the last 10 years is more to do with them defending themselves.
-
Indeed it is.
quote from Sun
"So far no money has been paid by either party and now they will square up to each other at the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg."
Utter rubbish. Amaral has nothing to to with any case at the ECHR
Exactly Jassi.
It is nothing to do with Amaral anymore.
They would have to take the state of Portugal to the E.C.H.R. , and that is truly risible.
-
They first have to, accept the case.
...and it won't be against Amaral, either.
Meanwhile i anticipate action against the McCann's by the Portuguese, as they have not paid up after the Supreme Court Judgement.
Tell me Brietta, how do you defend the McCann's failure to look after Madeleine's human rights ?
Don't you rather think there is a matter of Law here as far as the money which seems to have become a bit of an obsession to you is concerned?
The European Court being the clincher on who pays what to whom?
Just a case of wait and see
(a) if the case is accepted and
(b) what the ruling of the European Court of Human Rights will be if it is
The fact no money has yet changed hands suggests that while the case is still under legal consideration, none will. Should the ECHR rule in the McCann favour I think the boot will be on the other foot with Portugal lifting the tab and Amaral kissing goodbye to the money he made from Madeleine.
Time will tell. ABSOLUTELY AIMHO
-
50:50 ?
Yet NOT ONE TRACE OF HER, in the real world.
When did the McCann's last look for her.
In my opinion, the last 10 years is more to do with them defending themselves.
If the McCanns do think Madeleine is alive, their 'awareness' campaign is rather lack lustre, consisting of a free Facebook page which rarely posts information about Madeleine, seemingly preferring to be a satellite publicity site for Missing People and an official webpage which, apart from the McCann's Christmas and anniversary messages, has not been touched since God was a boy.
-
Don't you rather think there is a matter of Law here as far as the money which seems to have become a bit of an obsession to you is concerned?
The European Court being the clincher on who pays what to whom?
Just a case of wait and see
(a) if the case is accepted and
(b) what the ruling of the European Court of Human Rights will be if it is
The fact no money has yet changed hands suggests that while the case is still under legal consideration, none will. Should the ECHR rule in the McCann favour I think the boot will be on the other foot with Portugal lifting the tab and Amaral kissing goodbye to the money he made from Madeleine.
Time will tell. ABSOLUTELY AIMHO
As Davel was so fond of saying,' you simply don't understand' .
-
Don't you rather think there is a matter of Law here as far as the money which seems to have become a bit of an obsession to you is concerned?
The European Court being the clincher on who pays what to whom?
Just a case of wait and see
(a) if the case is accepted and
(b) what the ruling of the European Court of Human Rights will be if it is
The fact no money has yet changed hands suggests that while the case is still under legal consideration, none will. Should the ECHR rule in the McCann favour I think the boot will be on the other foot with Portugal lifting the tab and Amaral kissing goodbye to the money he made from Madeleine.
Time will tell. ABSOLUTELY AIMHO
You don't seem to comprehend.
The legal action in Portugal is over.
It is nothing to do with Amaral anymore.
Action through the E.C.H.R. is not connected.
Basically the McCann'S aren't paying up, AS I PREDICTED THEY WOULDN'T.
If the McCann's have any decency, they should have paid up already.
I.M.H.O. naturally.
There is also the little matter of any case being accepted. With a long backlog of cases.
-
If the McCanns do think Madeleine is alive, their 'awareness' campaign is rather lack lustre, consisting of a free Facebook page which rarely posts information about Madeleine, seemingly preferring to be a satellite publicity site for Missing People and an official webpage which, apart from the McCann's Christmas and anniversary messages, has not been touched since God was a boy.
Very true Faithlilly.
I find their 'search' for Madeleine, less than convincing.
-
Just a reminder of whom can go to the ECHR and whom they can take on.
Note: a complaint cannot be made against an individual.
You may lodge an application with the Court if you consider that you have personally and directly been the victim of a violation of the rights and guarantees set out in the Convention or its Protocols. The alleged violation must have been committed by one of the States bound by the Convention.
Against one or more of the States bound by the Convention which, in your opinion, has/have (through one or more acts or omissions directly affecting you) violated the European Convention on Human Rights.
The Court cannot deal with complaints against individuals or private institutions, such as commercial companies.
http://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/Questions_Answers_ENG.pdf
-
Just a reminder of whom can go to the ECHR and whom they can take on.
Note: a complaint cannot be made against an individual.
http://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/Questions_Answers_ENG.pdf
Why let the truth get in the way of story.
-
A further bit of reading brings this.
The Court does not act as a court of appeal in relation to national courts; it does not rehear cases, it cannot quash, vary or revise their decisions.
So the verdict of the supreme court stands and will remains as it is.
So the gist of it is any complaint is against the State of Portugal in allowing its courts to come to the decision and in doing so the McCann's feel that in some way it affects their human rights,what part is not known.imo to the last bit.
-
A further bit of reading brings this.
So the verdict of the supreme court stands and will remains as it is.
So the gist of it is any complaint is against the State of Portugal in allowing its courts to come to the decision and in doing so the McCann's feel that in some way it affects their human rights,what part is not known.imo to the last bit.
Thank you Barrier for that pertinent reminder. 8@??)( 8@??)( 8@??)(
-
Just a reminder of whom can go to the ECHR and whom they can take on.
Note: a complaint cannot be made against an individual.
http://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/Questions_Answers_ENG.pdf
The appeal court judges representing the Portuguese State made the ruling against the McCanns. It is that which the McCanns are taking to the ECHR. The repercussions will arise from that court's ruling.
The fact that as yet no money has changed hands ... suggests to me that if the ruling of the ECHR finds for the McCanns, I suggest that would overturn the appeal court ruling against them. Thus reinstating the status quo of the original Portuguese finding in their favour.
What a pity OxfordB no longer posts with us ... he would have been able to explain it all to us chapter and verse
-
A further bit of reading brings this.
So the verdict of the supreme court stands and will remains as it is.
So the gist of it is any complaint is against the State of Portugal in allowing its courts to come to the decision and in doing so the McCann's feel that in some way it affects their human rights,what part is not known.imo to the last bit.
Everybody knows that. Its just that some are more reluctant to accept it than others.
-
The appeal court judges representing the Portuguese State made the ruling against the McCanns. It is that which the McCanns are taking to the ECHR. The repercussions will arise from that court's ruling.
The fact that as yet no money has changed hands ... suggests to me that if the ruling of the ECHR finds for the McCanns, I suggest that would overturn the appeal court ruling against them. Thus reinstating the status quo of the original Portuguese finding in their favour.
What a pity OxfordB no longer posts with us ... he would have been able to explain it all to us chapter and verse
See post 30,the judgement cannot be overturned.
-
The appeal court judges representing the Portuguese State made the ruling against the McCanns. It is that which the McCanns are taking to the ECHR. The repercussions will arise from that court's ruling.
The fact that as yet no money has changed hands ... suggests to me that if the ruling of the ECHR finds for the McCanns, I suggest that would overturn the appeal court ruling against them. Thus reinstating the status quo of the original Portuguese finding in their favour.
What a pity OxfordB no longer posts with us ... he would have been able to explain it all to us chapter and verse
The action against Amaral is over.
The E.C.H.R. is nothing to do with what the McCann's owe and the Portuguese Supreme Court Judgement cannot be overruled.
-
The courts awarded costs against the McCanns. These were for legal services incurred by the case going to court.
Amaral has so far made no claim for damages.
-
The courts awarded costs against the McCanns. These were for legal services incurred by the case going to court.
Amaral has so far made no claim for damages.
Nor do I think he will ever be in the position to do so. However, one hurdle at a time. The McCann lawyers have applied to the ECHR ... it remains to be seen if that application is successful ... and if so most likely an even longer wait before judgement day.
Do I get the impression that Amaral is rapidly becoming a footnote in history?
-
The courts awarded costs against the McCanns. These were for legal services incurred by the case going to court.
Amaral has so far made no claim for damages.
If he had a heart he wouldn't.
-
Do I get the impression that Amaral is rapidly becoming a footnote in history?
Possibly,but no doubt some one with nothing better to do will drag his name into the equation at some stage in the future.
-
i think the mcanns are addicted to the attention they get everybody knows this wont happen and yet supporters lap it up all imo
-
The appeal court judges representing the Portuguese State made the ruling against the McCanns. It is that which the McCanns are taking to the ECHR. The repercussions will arise from that court's ruling.
The fact that as yet no money has changed hands ... suggests to me that if the ruling of the ECHR finds for the McCanns, I suggest that would overturn the appeal court ruling against them. Thus reinstating the status quo of the original Portuguese finding in their favour.
What a pity OxfordB no longer posts with us ... he would have been able to explain it all to us chapter and verse
You really ought to mug up on just what the ECHR can and cannot do.
I am not asking you to believe me I am asking you to believe what the ECHR say in all the guff available on the ECHR website and available in any decent reference library.
Your starter for 10.
http://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/Questions_Answers_ENG.pdf
What is the European Court of Human Rights not able to do for me?
The Court does not act as a court of appeal in relation to national
courts; it does not rehear cases, it cannot quash, vary or revise
their decisions.
The Court will not intercede directly on your behalf with
the authority you are complaining about. In exceptional
circumstances the Court may, however, grant interim measures.
As a matter of practice it only does so where there is a serious
risk of physical harm to the applicant.
The Court will not help you find or pay a lawyer to draw up your
application.
The Court cannot give you any information on legal provisions
in force in the State against which your complaints are directed.
-
alice this is all spin imo dont you think anything to get themselves into newspapers etc
-
alice this is all spin imo dont you think anything to get themselves into newspapers etc
I believe the good Drs McCann found themselves in a position where they could do little else regardless of its merit.
It has the potential for booting the can ten years down the track ....... but it has to clear the first hurdle yet with two more hurdles after that.
The case will be against The State of Portugal not Amaral which some seem to fail to grasp. In ten years time they may be awarded 70 grand compensation if they are lucky.
See Steel and Morris v UK.
-
I believe the good Drs McCann found themselves in a position where they could do little else regardless of its merit.
It has the potential for booting the can ten years down the track ....... but it has to clear the first hurdle yet with two more hurdles after that.
The case will be against The State of Portugal not Amaral which some seem to fail to grasp. In ten years time they may be awarded 70 grand compensation if they are lucky.
See Steel and Morris v UK.
right so it doesnt affect amaral or his money at all does it?
-
I believe the good Drs McCann found themselves in a position where they could do little else regardless of its merit.
It has the potential for booting the can ten years down the track ....... but it has to clear the first hurdle yet with two more hurdles after that.
The case will be against The State of Portugal not Amaral which some seem to fail to grasp. In ten years time they may be awarded 70 grand compensation if they are lucky.
See Steel and Morris v UK.
I think they understand it very well, but are just unwilling to accept it.
Its the whole denial business of not accepting that the McCann are to blame for anything.
-
right so it doesnt affect amaral or his money at all does it?
Of course not. Any frozen assets have been well and truly thawed out by now.
Money paid out by the McCanns is for legal fees. Amaral had crowd-funded money for his legal fees.
-
I think they understand it very well, but are just unwilling to accept it.
Its the whole denial business of not accepting that the McCann are to blame for anything.
Then why insult our intelligence by insisting, by implication, that the ECHR public information is a load of blx?
-
Then why insult our intelligence by insisting, by implication, that the ECHR public information is a load of blx?
Isn't it just trolling ? - winding others up
-
dont the mcanns still owe lots of money still??
-
dont the mcanns still owe lots of money still??
Who knows? The Sun certainly doesn't or it would have provided a source.
-
Can't you see it? There is a 50/50 chance that Madeleine is dead ... there is a 50/50 chance that Madeleine is alive ... or at the least she was on the 4th May 2007.
Her parents are going with the 50/50 that she is alive ... and have insisted on searching for her based on that ... which has resulted in evidence being uncovered which justified British and Portuguese authorities reopening Madeleine's case.
Amaral has insisted as we now know from his book, from the moment when he opened his eyes on the morning of 4th May 2007, that Madeleine died in the apartment and her parents were complicit in that and hiding her body.
Nobody looks for a dead child and the search for her body proved redundant provoking all sorts of wild allegations from Amaral then and over the years intervening.
Therefore it is self evident that Madeleine's parents have been fighting for over ten years to protect her human right as a missing child ... to be looked for.
Can you show your workings for your 50:50 claim?
-
Don't you rather think there is a matter of Law here as far as the money which seems to have become a bit of an obsession to you is concerned?
The European Court being the clincher on who pays what to whom?
Just a case of wait and see
(a) if the case is accepted and
(b) what the ruling of the European Court of Human Rights will be if it is
The fact no money has yet changed hands suggests that while the case is still under legal consideration, none will. Should the ECHR rule in the McCann favour I think the boot will be on the other foot with Portugal lifting the tab and Amaral kissing goodbye to the money he made from Madeleine.
Time will tell. ABSOLUTELY AIMHO
The McCann's appeal to the ECHR changes nothing in respect of the money they owe to the Portuguese Courts;
If I apply to the Court, does it mean I do not have to
comply with the final judgment given by the domestic
courts?
No, applying to the Court has no suspensive effect. You must
comply with the final decisions of the national courts even if you
lodge an application with the Strasbourg Court.
http://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/Your_Application_ENG.pdf
I think it's quite bad if they haven't paid what they owe after 6 months.
-
Can you show your workings for your 50:50 claim?
This is not possible either way.
-
Can you show your workings for your 50:50 claim?
I don't think the prosecutors saw it as 50/50;
whether she is still alive or if she is dead, as seems more likely.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/LEGAL_SUMMARY.htm
-
The McCann's appeal to the ECHR changes nothing in respect of the money they owe to the Portuguese Courts;
If I apply to the Court, does it mean I do not have to
comply with the final judgment given by the domestic
courts?
No, applying to the Court has no suspensive effect. You must
comply with the final decisions of the national courts even if you
lodge an application with the Strasbourg Court.
http://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/Your_Application_ENG.pdf
I think it's quite bad if they haven't paid what they owe after 6 months.
They could well face court action themselves for recovery of the money, plus additional costs.
If they trying to avoid paying, it is a very foolish choice.
-
This is not possible either way.
So if said I reckoned that there was only a 10% chance of her being alive, you'd let that stand because there's no way to show either way ?
-
They could well face court action themselves for recovery of the money, plus additional costs.
If they trying to avoid paying, it is a very foolish choice.
There's always the possibility that the Courts haven't added up the bill and sent it out yet. It will be quite complicated as it will be made up of costs for so many cases with different claimants and defendants. Then there will be claims from the defendants for various expenses plus lawyer's fees. The Portuguese Courts aren't noted fr their speed.
-
This is not possible either way.
Surely it was more than just a WAG.
-
Indeed it is.
quote from Sun
"So far no money has been paid by either party and now they will square up to each other at the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg."
Utter rubbish. Amaral has nothing to to with any case at the ECHR
100% correct. Gonçalo Amaral has no involvement in any action raised by the McCann's at the ECHR, I do wish someone would explain this to Nick Pisa and The Sun. The Application is against Portugal, not Gonçalo Amaral.
-
If he had a heart he wouldn't.
You forget that the McCanns tried to destroy Amaral using the Civil Court in Portugal.
I would think this Application to the ECHR relates to the Supreme Court reference to innocence but it has to be remembered that the judgement was in a Civil Court and not a Criminal Court.
-
The appeal court judges representing the Portuguese State made the ruling against the McCanns. It is that which the McCanns are taking to the ECHR. The repercussions will arise from that court's ruling.
The fact that as yet no money has changed hands ... suggests to me that if the ruling of the ECHR finds for the McCanns, I suggest that would overturn the appeal court ruling against them. Thus reinstating the status quo of the original Portuguese finding in their favour.
What a pity OxfordB no longer posts with us ... he would have been able to explain it all to us chapter and verse
One can only raise an Application to the ECHR against a State. The question is, has a Application been raised against the UK or Portugal or both?
-
100% correct. Gonçalo Amaral has no involvement in any action raised by the McCann's at the ECHR, I do wish someone would explain this to Nick Pisa and The Sun. The Application is against Portugal, not Gonçalo Amaral.
It has been explained.
Unfortunately, he is either ignoring it, or he is a few marbles short of a full load. Allegedly, of course.
-
I don't think the prosecutors saw it as 50/50;
whether she is still alive or if she is dead, as seems more likely.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/LEGAL_SUMMARY.htm
AFAIK - a Portuguese attorney (Jose Magalhaes e Menezes) who was a witness at the trial told the court that he thought there was a 50/50 chance of Madeleine still being alive - when asked the question by Amaral's lawyer.
IIRC it is also the case the Amaral's lawyer originally asked for the case to be held in camera - in case Madeleine was still alive. (from memory)
-
100% correct. Gonçalo Amaral has no involvement in any action raised by the McCann's at the ECHR, I do wish someone would explain this to Nick Pisa and The Sun. The Application is against Portugal, not Gonçalo Amaral.
Will the ECHR call on parties like Amaral and the McCanns to give evidence?
-
Will the ECHR call on parties like Amaral and the McCanns to give evidence?
I wouldn't expect so. IMO it is purely a question of law not judgement.
-
I wouldn't expect so. IMO it is purely a question of law not judgement.
So the real questions as to whether the SC was right to call the book opinion has to be decided. Therefore does the ECHR have to understand whether GA claims in the book were opinions or comments designed to damage the McCanns in a sort of vendetta against them?
I have no problem with the rights of citizens having an opinion but who has the right to publish defamatory material? How does one determine whether it is opinion or defamation? That to me is the real question, and the judgement they got wrong.
-
So the real questions as to whether the SC was right to call the book opinion has to be decided. Therefore does the ECHR have to understand whether GA claims in the book were opinions or comments designed to damage the McCanns in a sort of vendetta against them?
I have no problem with the rights of citizens having an opinion but who has the right to publish defamatory material? How does one determine whether it is opinion or defamation? That to me is the real question, and the judgement they got wrong.
What vendetta ?
That is Pro Mccann propaganda.
-
Amaral wrote a book discussing a theory he and the PJ had with regards to what may have happened to a 'missing' child. They, for what ever reason, didn't believe the McCann's version of accounts of the run up to their daughter being missing. There is nothing illegal about that at all.
The McCanns quite rightly took offence to this, as they believed Amaral was trying to accuse them of something they claim they did not do- fair enough. But still no law is broken. It was the McCanns who instigated a CIVIL action against Amaral which after going to the supreme court was thrown out, as Freedom of speech is highly regarded and entrenched within the ECHR.
It doesn't matter if the theory Is true or not just like it doesn't matter if the McCanns and their theory of abduction is true or not, the fact is Amaral had the freedom to write his into a book just like Kate did her theory in her book.
That should have been the end of the matter. Both sides writing books to discuss what they believed happened.
Why the McCanns feel they have more of a right than anyone else is beyond arrogance, one could argue that they had an agenda to re direct a police investigation away from them using what ever means was available to them. Thus causing further suspicion.
It was during this tit for tat at the CIVIL court ( the McCanns tried to use it as a criminal court to their advantage but the Judge was having none of it), that it was indeed reiterated that the McCanns failed to convince the PJ that they played no part in their daughters disappearance. This could be narrowed down to a simple fact that they refuse to take any responsibility at all for their daughters fate. Whatever that was /is. I.E they are still suspected of playing a part whatever that part was /is.
Is this against their human rights well No. the police can continue to suspect them and hold a file in archived state and their is nothing illegal in that.
ECHR vs Portugal in a claim that their PJ didn't believe the McCanns in a civil court will be an interesting read indeed.
Meanwhile- Amaral is exonerated and the McCanns are punching way above their weight. And they still owe court fees regardless or any ECHR outcome.
Maddie is still the loser in all this disgraceful behaviour in my opinion.
-
AFAIK - a Portuguese attorney (Jose Magalhaes e Menezes) who was a witness at the trial told the court that he thought there was a 50/50 chance of Madeleine still being alive - when asked the question by Amaral's lawyer.
IIRC it is also the case the Amaral's lawyer originally asked for the case to be held in camera - in case Madeleine was still alive. (from memory)
I can't find any transcript of the evidence of Jose Magalhaes e Menezes so I can't comment.
-
What vendetta ?
That is Pro Mccann propaganda.
You have to look at it from both sides.
-
Might I be allowed to make the attempt to remove yet another rather silly and petty digression from the thread topic.
The use of semantics choosing one aspect of something I have mentioned in a post is becoming as predictable as it is tiresome.
I said: "Can't you see it? There is a 50/50 chance that Madeleine is dead ... there is a 50/50 chance that Madeleine is alive ... or at the least she was on the 4th May 2007."
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=8465.msg422735#msg422735
British Police Say Madeleine McCann May Still Be Alive
By SANDY MACASKILLAPRIL 25, 2012
Snip
“From the outset we have approached this review with a completely open mind, placing Madeleine McCann at the heart of everything we do,” Mr. Redwood said.
“We are working on the basis of two possibilities here. One is that Madeleine is still alive, and the second that she is sadly dead.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/26/world/europe/britain-reopens-the-madeleine-mccann-case.html
Two possibilities.
One ... Madeleine is still alive.
Second ... Madeleine is sadly dead. To describe that as 50/50 seems fine to me ... others may have different thought processes which leads them to another conclusion ... that is entirely their prerogative.
Following from Benice's post regarding 50/50
//// //// ////
11:20 : The first witness is being called by videoconference.
11:23 : It is the attorney who was in charge of the original inqury into Madeleine's disappearance, Jose Magalhaes e Menezes
//// //// ////
11:39 : The decision to designate Kate and Gerry as 'arguidos' was taken after the sniffer dogs carried out their searches.
11:40 : There were several possible charges that could have been brought against the McCanns: kidnapping and selling a child were among them. s.
11:48 : The witness was asked what the probability was of Madeleine still being alive. He replied that he thought it was 50/50.
http://missingmadeleine.forumotion.net/t7174-sky-live-transcript-libel-case-complete
In my opinion a pattern is developing with spurious arguments being made using one aspect from my posts as ammunition ... if I could be bothered I would check back and prove it ... however I am aware of it and the disruption it is causing on the threads.
In future I will report anything which I think may be part of this pattern ... so now would be the time to desist.
-
It would help if "probability", "possibility" "odds" and "chance" were not conflated with a consequential error in how they are expressed.
-
Might I be allowed to make the attempt to remove yet another rather silly and petty digression from the thread topic.
The use of semantics choosing one aspect of something I have mentioned in a post is becoming as predictable as it is tiresome.
I said: "Can't you see it? There is a 50/50 chance that Madeleine is dead ... there is a 50/50 chance that Madeleine is alive ... or at the least she was on the 4th May 2007."
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=8465.msg422735#msg422735
British Police Say Madeleine McCann May Still Be Alive
By SANDY MACASKILLAPRIL 25, 2012
Snip
“From the outset we have approached this review with a completely open mind, placing Madeleine McCann at the heart of everything we do,” Mr. Redwood said.
“We are working on the basis of two possibilities here. One is that Madeleine is still alive, and the second that she is sadly dead.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/26/world/europe/britain-reopens-the-madeleine-mccann-case.html
Two possibilities.
One ... Madeleine is still alive.
Second ... Madeleine is sadly dead. To describe that as 50/50 seems fine to me ... others may have different thought processes which leads them to another conclusion ... that is entirely their prerogative.
Following from Benice's post regarding 50/50
//// //// ////
11:20 : The first witness is being called by videoconference.
11:23 : It is the attorney who was in charge of the original inqury into Madeleine's disappearance, Jose Magalhaes e Menezes
//// //// ////
11:39 : The decision to designate Kate and Gerry as 'arguidos' was taken after the sniffer dogs carried out their searches.
11:40 : There were several possible charges that could have been brought against the McCanns: kidnapping and selling a child were among them. s.
11:48 : The witness was asked what the probability was of Madeleine still being alive. He replied that he thought it was 50/50.
http://missingmadeleine.forumotion.net/t7174-sky-live-transcript-libel-case-complete
In my opinion a pattern is developing with spurious arguments being made using one aspect from my posts as ammunition ... if I could be bothered I would check back and prove it ... however I am aware of it and the disruption it is causing on the threads.
In future I will report anything which I think may be part of this pattern ... so now would be the time to desist.
Sorry if you object to my need for accuracy and clarity, but I do like to see the evidence for myself.
The 'Sky' transcript is headed 'Day One' and says Jose Magalhaes e Menezes's evidence took place between 11.23 and 12.39. He is followed by Tavares de Almeida whose evidence begins at 12.48.
Anne Guedes's transcripts say Tavares de Almeida appeared on Day seven and his evidence begins at 11.55.
OK, I've got it now. The Sky tweets by jondipaulo were made at the hearing in January 2010 to decide about the book ban;
10:42 jondipaolo:
The judge has stressed that this hearing is separate to the action being brought by the McCanns for £1m in damages.
Thursday January 14, 2010 10:42 jondipaolo
10:44 jondipaolo:
She stresses that this trial is solely about the publication and distribution of the book and the documentary upon which it was based.
Thursday January 14, 2010 10:44 jondipaolo
http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/Twitter_jondipaolo_12_01_2010.htm
Anne's transcripts are from the actual trial (main action) which began on 12th September 2013.
-
A bit more reading brings this,so they are liable for the cost's in Portugal as per the supreme court judgement,applying to the ECHR does not negate that.
If I apply to the court, does it mean I do not have to comply with the final Judgment given by the domestic courts?
No, applying to the Court has no suspensive effect. You must comply with the final decisions of the national courts even if you lodge an application with the Strasbourg Court.
http://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/Your_Application_ENG.pdf
-
A reminder that personal attacks on any member is against the forum rules. TY
-
In these ECHR cases, who pays the legal costs ? The loser?
-
In these ECHR cases, who pays the legal costs ? The loser?
Send the bill to Gonzalo Amaral he has money.
-
In these ECHR cases, who pays the legal costs ? The loser?
I believe each party pays their own costs.
Fundamenatally the application is only collecting and collating documents to submit to the court for their consideration as I understand it.
Edited to correct.
If the applicant loses he does not have to pay the defending states costs.
If the state loses they can be ordered to pay the applicants costs although this does not appear to be a given.
-
Send the bill to Gonzalo Amaral he has money.
It's nothing to do with him.
-
Do I get the impression that Amaral is rapidly becoming a footnote in history?
Possibly,but no doubt some one with nothing better to do will drag his name into the equation at some stage in the future.
Send the bill to Gonzalo Amaral he has money.
I rest my case.
-
Are journalists really so lacking in knowledge or are their misleading stories written to comply with some agreed agenda?
Madeleine McCann's parents are appealing to the European Court of Human Rights in attempt to silence the Portuguese ex-police chief who claimed their daughter is dead and they are responsible.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4867778/Madeleine-McCann-s-parents-appeal-European-Court.html#ixzz4sJg6Uouw
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
-
Are journalists really so lacking in knowledge or are their misleading stories written to comply with some agreed agenda?
Madeleine McCann's parents are appealing to the European Court of Human Rights in attempt to silence the Portuguese ex-police chief who claimed their daughter is dead and they are responsible.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4867778/Madeleine-McCann-s-parents-appeal-European-Court.html#ixzz4sJg6Uouw
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
Surely that can't be that stupid, or they they think the public is gullible enough to believe the dross in the Mail ?
-
Surely that can't be that stupid, or they they think the public is gullible enough to believe the dross in the Mail ?
Yet again it's absolutely astounding the contempt that is being shown to the public.
-
Yet again it's absolutely astounding the contempt that is being shown to the public.
Are any of the McCann supporters on here going to accept and endorse that the Mail article contains several lies ?
-
Are any of the McCann supporters on here going to accept and endorse that the Mail article contains several lies ?
As always Stephen the silence is deafening.
-
As always Stephen the silence is deafening.
Indeed it is Faithlilly.
-
More factually inept garbage from The Sun. The Portuguese Supreme Court is the highest court in Portugal.
MADDIE PROBE - Madeleine McCann’s parents will ‘fight to the bitter end’ to silence ex-cop Goncalo Amaral who accused them in daughter’s disappearance.
Exclusive by Tracey Kandohla
10th September 2017
Retired Portuguese detective Goncalo Amaral has always claimed Maddie died accidentally in her holiday apartment in Portugal’s Praia da Luz.
THE parents of Madeleine McCann have vowed to “fight forever” against an ex cop they say is still hampering the search for their daughter.
Despairing Kate and Gerry, who have lodged an appeal to the highest court in the land in their latest bid to silence Goncalo Amaral, will “never give up the battle against him”, a close friend said today.
The pal said: “They are hoping the court will decide that evidence submitted by their Portuguese lawyer to support their appeal is admissible, that’s the first hurdle to clear.
"They believe they have a strong chance of the appeal being allowed but it could drag on and on for ages. These decisions are not made overnight.
“If the appeal goes ahead they have been told not to expect a result for four years.
“But they are prepared to be patient. Mr Amaral has been fighting them for the past nine years and during this time his poisonous lies have hindered the search for Madeleine because he claims she is dead and that stops people coming forward with information which could be vital.”
The source told The Sun Online: “He will always remain a thorn in Kate and Gerry’s sides. They are determined to continue fighting him to the bitter end, forever if needs be.
"They will never give up and hope ultimately they can defeat him and stop him spouting false and malicious lies.”
Mr Amaral, 57, who led the bungled hunt into Maddie’s disappearance in May 2007, claimed in his book that she had died accidentally in her holiday apartment in Portugal’s Praia da Luz.
He wrote in his 2008 best seller “The Truth of the Lie” that her parents had covered up her death and disposed of her body.
Medical worker Kate, a former GP, and heart doctor Gerry, both 49, of Rothley, Leics, sued him for libel and won their case after a bitter eight year battle only to lose it on appeal in April.
That decision in Portugal’s Supreme Court paved the way for the retired Portuguese cop to sue the McCanns for damages.
Their pal said: “It could amount to tens of thousands of pounds which could wipe out a huge chunk of the Madeleine Fund set up to find their daughter.”
In a last ditch bid to prevent them from paying out and to clear their names, the couple lodged an appeal with the European Court of Human Rights in July.
The court acknowledged their application last month and its admissibility is now being examined, family spokesman Clarence Mitchell confirmed.
He added: “Kate and Gerry will not be commenting on any aspect whatsoever as it remains entirely a matter for their Portuguese lawyers.”
If their application to appeal is allowed the couple are not expected to face a Strasbourg showdown with Mr Amaral until next year.
Maddie’s parents said in a TV interview to mart the painful 10th anniversary of their daughter’s kidnap in May that it was important to challenge Mr Amaral.
Gerry said they had to continue fighting him because “the last judgment I think is terrible.” Kate added: “It has been very upsetting, and it has caused lot of frustration and anger which is a real negative emotion. I find it all incomprehensible.”
Three-year-old Maddie vanished from her holiday flat while her parents were dining with pals in a nearby tapas restaurant.
She had been left alone sleeping with her younger twin siblings.
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/4433711/madeleine-mccann-latest-parents-fight-silence-cop-goncalo-amaral-disappearance/
-
More factually inept garbage from The Sun.
MADDIE PROBE - Madeleine McCann’s parents will ‘fight to the bitter end’ to silence ex-cop Goncalo Amaral who accused them in daughter’s disappearance.
Exclusive by Tracey Kandohla
10th September 2017
Retired Portuguese detective Goncalo Amaral has always claimed Maddie died accidentally in her holiday apartment in Portugal’s Praia da Luz.
THE parents of Madeleine McCann have vowed to “fight forever” against an ex cop they say is still hampering the search for their daughter.
Despairing Kate and Gerry, who have lodged an appeal to the highest court in the land in their latest bid to silence Goncalo Amaral, will “never give up the battle against him”, a close friend said today.
The pal said: “They are hoping the court will decide that evidence submitted by their Portuguese lawyer to support their appeal is admissible, that’s the first hurdle to clear.
"They believe they have a strong chance of the appeal being allowed but it could drag on and on for ages. These decisions are not made overnight.
“If the appeal goes ahead they have been told not to expect a result for four years.
“But they are prepared to be patient. Mr Amaral has been fighting them for the past nine years and during this time his poisonous lies have hindered the search for Madeleine because he claims she is dead and that stops people coming forward with information which could be vital.”
The source told The Sun Online: “He will always remain a thorn in Kate and Gerry’s sides. They are determined to continue fighting him to the bitter end, forever if needs be.
"They will never give up and hope ultimately they can defeat him and stop him spouting false and malicious lies.”
Mr Amaral, 57, who led the bungled hunt into Maddie’s disappearance in May 2007, claimed in his book that she had died accidentally in her holiday apartment in Portugal’s Praia da Luz.
He wrote in his 2008 best seller “The Truth of the Lie” that her parents had covered up her death and disposed of her body.
Medical worker Kate, a former GP, and heart doctor Gerry, both 49, of Rothley, Leics, sued him for libel and won their case after a bitter eight year battle only to lose it on appeal in April.
That decision in Portugal’s Supreme Court paved the way for the retired Portuguese cop to sue the McCanns for damages.
Their pal said: “It could amount to tens of thousands of pounds which could wipe out a huge chunk of the Madeleine Fund set up to find their daughter.”
In a last ditch bid to prevent them from paying out and to clear their names, the couple lodged an appeal with the European Court of Human Rights in July.
The court acknowledged their application last month and its admissibility is now being examined, family spokesman Clarence Mitchell confirmed.
He added: “Kate and Gerry will not be commenting on any aspect whatsoever as it remains entirely a matter for their Portuguese lawyers.”
If their application to appeal is allowed the couple are not expected to face a Strasbourg showdown with Mr Amaral until next year.
Maddie’s parents said in a TV interview to mart the painful 10th anniversary of their daughter’s kidnap in May that it was important to challenge Mr Amaral.
Gerry said they had to continue fighting him because “the last judgment I think is terrible.” Kate added: “It has been very upsetting, and it has caused lot of frustration and anger which is a real negative emotion. I find it all incomprehensible.”
Three-year-old Maddie vanished from her holiday flat while her parents were dining with pals in a nearby tapas restaurant.
She had been left alone sleeping with her younger twin siblings.
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/4433711/madeleine-mccann-latest-parents-fight-silence-cop-goncalo-amaral-disappearance/
Garbage is too polite a term John.
-
Garbage is too polite a term John.
"In a last ditch bid to prevent them from paying out and to clear their names, the couple lodged an appeal with the European Court of Human Rights in July."
I think you said as much yesterday Stephen, well anticipated. Clearly money is a significant factor here.
-
"In a last ditch bid to prevent them from paying out and to clear their names, the couple lodged an appeal with the European Court of Human Rights in July."
I think you said as much yesterday Stephen, well anticipated.
I did John.
However, they have to pay up.
It's nothing to do with the E.C.H.R.
If they don't, the Portuguese will pursue them to recover the fees due.
-
"In a last ditch bid to prevent them from paying out and to clear their names, the couple lodged an appeal with the European Court of Human Rights in July."
I think you said as much yesterday Stephen, well anticipated. Clearly money is a significant factor here.
"It should not be said that the appellants were cleared via the ruling announcing the archiving of the criminal case. In truth, that ruling was not made in virtue of Portugal's Public Prosecution Service having acquired the conviction that the appellants hadn't committed a crime.
"The archiving of the case was determined by the fact that public prosecutors hadn't managed to obtain sufficient evidence of the practice of crimes by the appellants.
"There is therefore a significant, and not merely a semantic difference, between the legally admissible foundations of the archive ruling. It doesn't therefore seem acceptable that the ruling, based on the insufficiency of evidence, should be equated to proof of innocence."
They added: "It's true that the aforementioned criminal inquiry ended up being archived, namely because none of the apparent evidence that led to the appellants being made 'arguidos' was subsequently confirmed or consolidated.
"However even the archive ruling raises serious concerns relating to the truth of the allegation that Madeleine was kidnapped."
Portuguese Supreme Court judges
In my opinion the above content in the ruling by the judges sitting in the Portuguese appeal court almost certainly guaranteed that Kate and Gerry McCann would make an approach to the European Court of Human Rights for their case to be considered.
In my opinion the wording of that judgement indicates that their application to be heard by the ECHR will be accepted.
If their application proceeds it is my opinion the wording of that judgement ensures that the McCanns will almost certainly win their case in the European Court.
In my opinion the wording of the ruling made by the Portuguese judges was a game changer the ultimate consequence of which will not be as the authors intended. Unlike the sceptics who at the time rejoiced at the inclusion, I thought it was an entirely unnecessary step too far.
I think that will prove to be the case. Brilliant in the short term but not well thought through to the long term.
If the case is to be heard, it will only remain to be seen what the wording of the complaint the McCann legal team presents to the court will be.
The McCanns can safely be associated with that legal representation. They absolutely cannot be associated with the ramblings of tabloids and broadsheets.
It is patently wrong to do so.
EU strengthens right to the presumption of innocence
According to the directive, member states will have to ensure that suspects and accused persons are presumed innocent until proven guilty under the law. The Directive provides two rights linked to this principle: the right to remain silent and the right not to incriminate oneself. In addition, member states will have to respect the following related obligations: before the final judgement, suspects and accused persons should not to be presented as being guilty through the use of measures of physical restraint and the burden of proof is on the prosecution while any reasonable doubts as to the guilt should benefit the accused. The right to be present at one's trial is also addressed by this directive.
Moreover, member states will have to ensure that suspects and accused persons have an effective remedy if their rights under this directive are breached.
http://data.consilium.europa.eu/doc/document/PE-63-2015-INIT/en/pdf
-
"It should not be said that the appellants were cleared via the ruling announcing the archiving of the criminal case. In truth, that ruling was not made in virtue of Portugal's Public Prosecution Service having acquired the conviction that the appellants hadn't committed a crime.
"The archiving of the case was determined by the fact that public prosecutors hadn't managed to obtain sufficient evidence of the practice of crimes by the appellants.
"There is therefore a significant, and not merely a semantic difference, between the legally admissible foundations of the archive ruling. It doesn't therefore seem acceptable that the ruling, based on the insufficiency of evidence, should be equated to proof of innocence."
They added: "It's true that the aforementioned criminal inquiry ended up being archived, namely because none of the apparent evidence that led to the appellants being made 'arguidos' was subsequently confirmed or consolidated.
"However even the archive ruling raises serious concerns relating to the truth of the allegation that Madeleine was kidnapped."
Portuguese Supreme Court judges
In my opinion the above content in the ruling by the judges sitting in the Portuguese appeal court almost certainly guaranteed that Kate and Gerry McCann would make an approach to the European Court of Human Rights for their case to be considered.
In my opinion the wording of that judgement indicates that their application to be heard by the ECHR will be accepted.
If their application proceeds it is my opinion the wording of that judgement ensures that the McCanns will almost certainly win their case in the European Court.
In my opinion the wording of the ruling made by the Portuguese judges was a game changer the ultimate consequence of which will not be as the authors intended. Unlike the sceptics who at the time rejoiced at the inclusion, I thought it was an entirely unnecessary step too far.
I think that will prove to be the case. Brilliant in the short term but not well thought through to the long term.
If the case is to be heard, it will only remain to be seen what the wording of the complaint the McCann legal team presents to the court will be.
The McCanns can safely be associated with that legal representation. They absolutely cannot be associated with the ramblings of tabloids and broadsheets.
It is patently wrong to do so.
EU strengthens right to the presumption of innocence
According to the directive, member states will have to ensure that suspects and accused persons are presumed innocent until proven guilty under the law. The Directive provides two rights linked to this principle: the right to remain silent and the right not to incriminate oneself. In addition, member states will have to respect the following related obligations: before the final judgement, suspects and accused persons should not to be presented as being guilty through the use of measures of physical restraint and the burden of proof is on the prosecution while any reasonable doubts as to the guilt should benefit the accused. The right to be present at one's trial is also addressed by this directive.
Moreover, member states will have to ensure that suspects and accused persons have an effective remedy if their rights under this directive are breached.
http://data.consilium.europa.eu/doc/document/PE-63-2015-INIT/en/pdf
The case was brought against Amaral, not the Mccann's.
You seem to have forgotten that key point.
The Supreme Court Judgement was made in respect of a E.C.H. R.'s case.
Have you forgotten that too?
Who was the source of this story ???
The name is given.
-
"It should not be said that the appellants were cleared via the ruling announcing the archiving of the criminal case. In truth, that ruling was not made in virtue of Portugal's Public Prosecution Service having acquired the conviction that the appellants hadn't committed a crime.
"The archiving of the case was determined by the fact that public prosecutors hadn't managed to obtain sufficient evidence of the practice of crimes by the appellants.
"There is therefore a significant, and not merely a semantic difference, between the legally admissible foundations of the archive ruling. It doesn't therefore seem acceptable that the ruling, based on the insufficiency of evidence, should be equated to proof of innocence."
They added: "It's true that the aforementioned criminal inquiry ended up being archived, namely because none of the apparent evidence that led to the appellants being made 'arguidos' was subsequently confirmed or consolidated.
"However even the archive ruling raises serious concerns relating to the truth of the allegation that Madeleine was kidnapped."
Portuguese Supreme Court judges
In my opinion the above content in the ruling by the judges sitting in the Portuguese appeal court almost certainly guaranteed that Kate and Gerry McCann would make an approach to the European Court of Human Rights for their case to be considered.
In my opinion the wording of that judgement indicates that their application to be heard by the ECHR will be accepted.
If their application proceeds it is my opinion the wording of that judgement ensures that the McCanns will almost certainly win their case in the European Court.
In my opinion the wording of the ruling made by the Portuguese judges was a game changer the ultimate consequence of which will not be as the authors intended. Unlike the sceptics who at the time rejoiced at the inclusion, I thought it was an entirely unnecessary step too far.
I think that will prove to be the case. Brilliant in the short term but not well thought through to the long term.
If the case is to be heard, it will only remain to be seen what the wording of the complaint the McCann legal team presents to the court will be.
The McCanns can safely be associated with that legal representation. They absolutely cannot be associated with the ramblings of tabloids and broadsheets.
It is patently wrong to do so.
EU strengthens right to the presumption of innocence
According to the directive, member states will have to ensure that suspects and accused persons are presumed innocent until proven guilty under the law. The Directive provides two rights linked to this principle: the right to remain silent and the right not to incriminate oneself. In addition, member states will have to respect the following related obligations: before the final judgement, suspects and accused persons should not to be presented as being guilty through the use of measures of physical restraint and the burden of proof is on the prosecution while any reasonable doubts as to the guilt should benefit the accused. The right to be present at one's trial is also addressed by this directive.
Moreover, member states will have to ensure that suspects and accused persons have an effective remedy if their rights under this directive are breached.
http://data.consilium.europa.eu/doc/document/PE-63-2015-INIT/en/pdf
The Supreme Court judges didn't deny the McCann's right to the presumption of innocence if that's what your post is saying. They denied them the right to use the archiving dispatch as proof of their innocence.
-
"In a last ditch bid to prevent them from paying out and to clear their names, the couple lodged an appeal with the European Court of Human Rights in July."
I think you said as much yesterday Stephen, well anticipated. Clearly money is a significant factor here.
The McCanns clearly expected, when they sued Gonçalo Amaral, to receive a million euros and make him miserable and feel fear. Now they can't bear the fact that they lost, he won and that they have to pay him and the other defendants for their court and legal costs. I was told that the McCanns want the ECHR to order a retrial because the judges were biased! I hope that their lawyers explained to them what this is not within the remit of the ECHR.
-
The McCanns clearly expected, when they sued Gonçalo Amaral, to receive a million euros and make him miserable and feel fear. Now they can't bear the fact that they lost, he won and that they have to pay him and the other defendants for their court and legal costs. I was told that the McCanns want the ECHR to order a retrial because the judges were biased! I hope that their lawyers explained to them what this is not within the remit of the ECHR.
Well, I have heard everything now.
Just how foolish are the Mccanns.
-
The McCanns clearly expected, when they sued Gonçalo Amaral, to receive a million euros and make him miserable and feel fear. Now they can't bear the fact that they lost, he won and that they have to pay him and the other defendants for their court and legal costs. I was told that the McCanns want the ECHR to order a retrial because the judges were biased! I hope that their lawyers explained to them what this is not within the remit of the ECHR.
How many judges have been biased, I wonder? Five appeal court judges and up to five Supreme Court judges have been involved in this case. They unanimously rejected the McCann's claims.
-
The Supreme Court judges didn't deny the McCann's right to the presumption of innocence if that's what your post is saying. They denied them the right to use the archiving dispatch as proof of their innocence.
I'm not sure whether or not the European Court of Human Rights takes semantics into consideration. I am certain though that what they do consider are points of law.
-
The McCanns clearly expected, when they sued Gonçalo Amaral, to receive a million euros and make him miserable and feel fear. Now they can't bear the fact that they lost, he won and that they have to pay him and the other defendants for their court and legal costs. I was told that the McCanns want the ECHR to order a retrial because the judges were biased! I hope that their lawyers explained to them what this is not within the remit of the ECHR.
Please remember the protocol of stating what is your opinion or speculation and what is fact.
I doubt very much if the McCanns or their legal team either consulted or informed you of anything concerning the legal case they intend to take to the European Court of Human Rights.
In my opinion you need have no fears either about the McCann knowledge of what the European court does or what it does not do, nor need you concern yourself with what may have been discussed with their legal representatives.
-
How many judges have been biased, I wonder? Five appeal court judges and up to five Supreme Court judges have been involved in this case. They unanimously rejected the McCann's claims.
In my opinion it all depends very much on how the judges in the European Court view the matter of the abrogation of the McCann Human Rights by the learned Portuguese judges.
All will be revealed in the fullness of time.
-
In my opinion it all depends very much on how the judges in the European Court view the matter of the abrogation of the McCann Human Rights by the learned Portuguese judges.
All will be revealed in the fullness of time.
You forget, a case has to be accepted.
There was no loss of the Mccann's human rights.
They brought a case and lost.
It's time they got over that, and pay what they owe.
Otherwise, they will be the ones pursued in court.
-
This is my take on what is happening now.
With the judgement of the SC, reported in every British newspaper, the McCanns can't be seen to be doing nothing to overturn that judgement. Of course we who are interested in the case know that no matter what the ECHR decide, and the McCanns still have to have their application accepted, it will not make an iota of difference to the SC judgement however the average tabloid reader wouldn't and this is who these articles are targeted at.
IMO the McCanns are well aware that their application will not succeed and these articles are merely a holding manoeuvre, printed in the knowledge that your average tabloid reader has a very, very short memory.
-
In my opinion it all depends very much on how the judges in the European Court view the matter of the abrogation of the McCann Human Rights by the learned Portuguese judges.
All will be revealed in the fullness of time.
The initial application will be reviewed by a single judge who will rule on its admissibilty. If he rules the application is inadmissible that's it end of the line, there is no appeal against it.
There are then potentially two stages after that.
-
I'm not sure whether or not the European Court of Human Rights takes semantics into consideration. I am certain though that what they do consider are points of law.
In this case they will be asked to decide if Portugal violated any of the McCann's rights under the European Convention on Human Rights.
I don't know which of their human rights they feel have been violated, but two have been mentioned during the various proceedings; Article 10 concerning freedom of expression and Article 6:2 concerning the presumption of innocence.
Freedom of expression allows people to give their opinion so long as certain restrictions are observed. The various judges found that Amaral didn't breach any of those restrictions.
The presumption of innocence applies to criminal, not civil proceedings. The judges pointed this out and referred to ECHR cases where the ECHR made the same point.
I don't know what 'semantics' are being referred to.
-
Please remember the protocol of stating what is your opinion or speculation and what is fact.
I doubt very much if the McCanns or their legal team either consulted or informed you of anything concerning the legal case they intend to take to the European Court of Human Rights.
In my opinion you need have no fears either about the McCann knowledge of what the European court does or what it does not do, nor need you concern yourself with what may have been discussed with their legal representatives.
IMO the McCanns legal team have not previously covered themselves in glory so that experience suggests that this effort could follow a similar course.
-
This is my take on what is happening now.
With the judgement of the SC, reported in every British newspaper, the McCanns can't be seen to be doing nothing to overturn that judgement. Of course we who are interested in the case know that no matter what the ECHR decide, and the McCanns still have to have their application accepted, it will not make an iota of difference to the SC judgement however the average tabloid reader wouldn't and this is who these articles are targeted at.
IMO the McCanns are well aware that their application will not succeed and these articles are merely a holding manoeuvre, printed in the knowledge that your average tabloid reader has a very, very short memory.
9 FEBRUARY 2017
Madeleine McCann’s parents have not been ruled innocent when it comes to their daughter’s disappearance, a judge in Portugal’s highest court has said.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/02/09/madeleine-mccanns-parents-have-not-ruled-innocent-judge-says/
9 February 2017
Judges made it clear in their decision their job was not to decide whether the McCanns bore any criminal responsibility over their daughter's disappearance and it would be wrong for anyone to draw any inferences about the couple's guilt or innocence from their ruling.
But they added: 'It should not be said that the appellants were cleared via the ruling announcing the archiving of the criminal case.
'In truth, that ruling was not made in virtue of Portugal's Public Prosecution Service having acquired the conviction that the appellants hadn't committed a crime.
'The archiving of the case was determined by the fact that public prosecutors hadn't managed to obtain sufficient evidence of the practice of crimes by the appellants.
'There is therefore a significant, and not merely a semantic difference, between the legally admissible foundations of the archive ruling.
'It doesn't therefore seem acceptable that the ruling, based on the insufficiency of evidence, should be equated to proof of innocence.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4206214/Court-says-Madeleine-McCann-s-parents-HAVEN-T-cleared.html#ixzz4sMyED0uo
February 9 2017
The Supreme Court judges said that lifting their status as formal suspects does not mean that they were innocent.
The court said it wasn't their job to determine whether the McCanns bore any criminal responsibility over their daughter's disappearance and said it would be wrong for anyone to draw any inferences about the couple's guilt or innocence from their ruling.
According to the Telegraph, they said: "It should not be said that the appellants were cleared via the ruling announcing the archiving of the criminal case. In truth, that ruling was not made in virtue of Portugal's Public Prosecution Service having acquired the conviction that the appellants hadn't committed a crime.
"The archiving of the case was determined by the fact that public prosecutors hadn't managed to obtain sufficient evidence of the practice of crimes by the appellants.
"There is therefore a significant, and not merely a semantic difference, between the legally admissible foundations of the archive ruling. It doesn't therefore seem acceptable that the ruling, based on the insufficiency of evidence, should be equated to proof of innocence."
They added: "It's true that the aforementioned criminal inquiry ended up being archived, namely because none of the apparent evidence that led to the appellants being made 'arguidos' was subsequently confirmed or consolidated.
"However even the archive ruling raises serious concerns relating to the truth of the allegation that Madeleine was kidnapped."
http://www.independent.ie/world-news/europe/britain/madeleine-mccanns-parents-have-not-been-ruled-innocent-judge-says-35437360.html
It seems I was wrong about semantics not being an issue should the McCann request to be heard by the European Court be granted.
It is a word which has appeared in the offending opinion of the judges who should in my opinion have implemented their own caveat and borne in mind what they were judging and not that about which they admitted they had no locus.
It has taken ten years to get to this stage in Portugal; making a four year wait for the European Court to sit in judgement should the case be accepted.
If you were in a similar situation as the McCanns and were content to cowtow to such a ruling that would be a matter for you.
Were I in the McCann's situation I would be doing exactly what they are ... and challenging a supreme court ruling which had driven a coach and horses through my reputation and my honour.
-
IMO the McCanns legal team have not previously covered themselves in glory so that experience suggests that this effort could follow a similar course.
I wouldn't be too harsh on the "avocados". They take their client's instructions and then make the best fist of those instructions they can.
-
In this case they will be asked to decide if Portugal violated any of the McCann's rights under the European Convention on Human Rights.
I don't know which of their human rights they feel have been violated, but two have been mentioned during the various proceedings; Article 10 concerning freedom of expression and Article 6:2 concerning the presumption of innocence.
Freedom of expression allows people to give their opinion so long as certain restrictions are observed. The various judges found that Amaral didn't breach any of those restrictions.
The presumption of innocence applies to criminal, not civil proceedings. The judges pointed this out and referred to ECHR cases where the ECHR made the same point.
I don't know what 'semantics' are being referred to.
You say: "The presumption of innocence applies to criminal, not civil proceedings. The judges pointed this out and referred to ECHR cases where the ECHR made the same point."
Why then do you suppose the Portuguese appeal court judges hearing a civil case ... chose to make a pronouncement on a criminal case ... and declared former arguidos guilty (not innocent) while questioning facts of the criminal case?
-
In my opinion it all depends very much on how the judges in the European Court view the matter of the abrogation of the McCann Human Rights by the learned Portuguese judges.
All will be revealed in the fullness of time.
Would you perchance be stating that as a fact? I thought that was to be determined by the ECHR?
-
I have been reading an opinion given by a Portuguese 'jurist' (someone who researches and studies jurisprudence (theory of law)). Apart from the points below, it explains very well what was wrong with the McCann's legal arguments and alludes to mistakes made in the first instance judgement; well worth a read imo.
The piece was written following the McCann's application to annul the Supreme Court judgement and it forecast the rejection of that application and why it would be rejected. In the writer's opinion that application was made in order to pave the way for an application to the ECHR. The expert's opinion on any such application was;
They are free of going to the ECtHR, of course. But if they go there, it will fall flat on its face. And for the very reasons previously invoked.
https://joana-morais.blogspot.co.uk/2017/03/on-mccanns-request-for-annulment-of.html
-
You say: "The presumption of innocence applies to criminal, not civil proceedings. The judges pointed this out and referred to ECHR cases where the ECHR made the same point."
Why then do you suppose the Portuguese appeal court judges hearing a civil case ... chose to make a pronouncement on a criminal case ... and declared former arguidos guilty (not innocent) while questioning facts of the criminal case?
I'm sorry, but I wasn't aware that the appeal court judges did that. Could you please cite your evidence that they;
'chose to make a pronouncement on a criminal case ... and declared former arguidos guilty (not innocent) while questioning facts of the criminal case?'
-
I have been reading an opinion given by a Portuguese 'jurist' (someone who researches and studies jurisprudence (theory of law)). Apart from the points below, it explains very well what was wrong with the McCann's legal arguments and alludes to mistakes made in the first instance judgement; well worth a read imo.
The piece was written following the McCann's application to annul the Supreme Court judgement and it forecast the rejection of that application and why it would be rejected. In the writer's opinion that application was made in order to pave the way for an application to the ECHR. The expert's opinion on any such application was;
They are free of going to the ECtHR, of course. But if they go there, it will fall flat on its face. And for the very reasons previously invoked.
https://joana-morais.blogspot.co.uk/2017/03/on-mccanns-request-for-annulment-of.html
I am sorry ... who is this jurist to whom you refer? Is it Morais?
-
Posting opinion as fact is against forum rules. If your statement was your opinion then it should include a caveat. If it's factual it should include cites. In the absence of caveats I was entitled to assume that you thought you were stating facts, in which case asking for cites is neither goading or stupid.
Your statement said;
"Why then do you suppose the Portuguese appeal court judges hearing a civil case ... chose to make a pronouncement on a criminal case ... and declared former arguidos guilty (not innocent) while questioning facts of the criminal case?"
What you don't tell us is which judges you are referring to (Appeal Court or Supreme Court); why you think they 'chose' to comment on a criminal case; why you think they declared anyone guilty; which facts they questioned.
-
I have been reading an opinion given by a Portuguese 'jurist' (someone who researches and studies jurisprudence (theory of law)). Apart from the points below, it explains very well what was wrong with the McCann's legal arguments and alludes to mistakes made in the first instance judgement; well worth a read imo.
The piece was written following the McCann's application to annul the Supreme Court judgement and it forecast the rejection of that application and why it would be rejected. In the writer's opinion that application was made in order to pave the way for an application to the ECHR. The expert's opinion on any such application was;
They are free of going to the ECtHR, of course. But if they go there, it will fall flat on its face. And for the very reasons previously invoked.
https://joana-morais.blogspot.co.uk/2017/03/on-mccanns-request-for-annulment-of.html
Good article.
-
Good article.
I thought so because understanding what the McCann's core arguments were is difficult, so the summary is helpful. It also helps with understanding what the Supreme Court judges were addressing and why.
-
I assume that the archiving report is a legal document in the Portuguese justice system. The courts used this document to verify the facts contained in Amaral's book, which were gathered under judicial secrecy. Notwithstanding the fact that Amaral broke his duty of reserve and the DVDs of the files were not in the public domain when his book was published, what right did the SC have to retrospectively alter the content of the very report used to verify Amaral's opinions to the detriment of 2 named arguidos?
-
I assume that the archiving report is a legal document in the Portuguese justice system. The courts used this document to verify the facts contained in Amaral's book, which were gathered under judicial secrecy. Notwithstanding the fact that Amaral broke his duty of reserve and the DVDs of the files were not in the public domain when his book was published, what right did the SC have to retrospectively alter the content of the very report used to verify Amaral's opinions to the detriment of 2 named arguidos?
The overwhelming majority of the information was already in the public domain prior to the book and DVD release.
-
The overwhelming majority of the information was already in the public domain prior to the book and DVD release.
No it wasn't. Very few of the witness/arguido statements were in the public domain.
Do you care to have a stab at the main point in my question?
-
No it wasn't. Very few of the witness/arguido statements were in the public domain.
Do you care to have a stab at the main point in my question?
I'm not just talking about the statements.
The theory that Madeleine had died was already in the public domain.
Basically, you attack Amaral at every turn.
You might have sussed by now, you're barking up the wrong tree. legal action is over, as regards against Amaral.
-
9 FEBRUARY 2017
Madeleine McCann’s parents have not been ruled innocent when it comes to their daughter’s disappearance, a judge in Portugal’s highest court has said.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/02/09/madeleine-mccanns-parents-have-not-ruled-innocent-judge-says/
9 February 2017
Judges made it clear in their decision their job was not to decide whether the McCanns bore any criminal responsibility over their daughter's disappearance and it would be wrong for anyone to draw any inferences about the couple's guilt or innocence from their ruling.
But they added: 'It should not be said that the appellants were cleared via the ruling announcing the archiving of the criminal case.
'In truth, that ruling was not made in virtue of Portugal's Public Prosecution Service having acquired the conviction that the appellants hadn't committed a crime.
'The archiving of the case was determined by the fact that public prosecutors hadn't managed to obtain sufficient evidence of the practice of crimes by the appellants.
'There is therefore a significant, and not merely a semantic difference, between the legally admissible foundations of the archive ruling.
'It doesn't therefore seem acceptable that the ruling, based on the insufficiency of evidence, should be equated to proof of innocence.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4206214/Court-says-Madeleine-McCann-s-parents-HAVEN-T-cleared.html#ixzz4sMyED0uo
February 9 2017
The Supreme Court judges said that lifting their status as formal suspects does not mean that they were innocent.
The court said it wasn't their job to determine whether the McCanns bore any criminal responsibility over their daughter's disappearance and said it would be wrong for anyone to draw any inferences about the couple's guilt or innocence from their ruling.
According to the Telegraph, they said: "It should not be said that the appellants were cleared via the ruling announcing the archiving of the criminal case. In truth, that ruling was not made in virtue of Portugal's Public Prosecution Service having acquired the conviction that the appellants hadn't committed a crime.
"The archiving of the case was determined by the fact that public prosecutors hadn't managed to obtain sufficient evidence of the practice of crimes by the appellants.
"There is therefore a significant, and not merely a semantic difference, between the legally admissible foundations of the archive ruling. It doesn't therefore seem acceptable that the ruling, based on the insufficiency of evidence, should be equated to proof of innocence."
They added: "It's true that the aforementioned criminal inquiry ended up being archived, namely because none of the apparent evidence that led to the appellants being made 'arguidos' was subsequently confirmed or consolidated.
"However even the archive ruling raises serious concerns relating to the truth of the allegation that Madeleine was kidnapped."
http://www.independent.ie/world-news/europe/britain/madeleine-mccanns-parents-have-not-been-ruled-innocent-judge-says-35437360.html
It seems I was wrong about semantics not being an issue should the McCann request to be heard by the European Court be granted.
It is a word which has appeared in the offending opinion of the judges who should in my opinion have implemented their own caveat and borne in mind what they were judging and not that about which they admitted they had no locus.
It has taken ten years to get to this stage in Portugal; making a four year wait for the European Court to sit in judgement should the case be accepted.
If you were in a similar situation as the McCanns and were content to cowtow to such a ruling that would be a matter for you.
Were I in the McCann's situation I would be doing exactly what they are ... and challenging a supreme court ruling which had driven a coach and horses through my reputation and my honour.
"The Supreme Court judges said that lifting their status as formal suspects does not mean that they were innocent."
Yes, correct, it doesn't say they are guilty either. It is just an archived, unsolved case and the parents have not been ruled out. Nothing illegal about that at all. It was their lawyer who claimed they were deemed innocent (cleared)not 'presumed innocent' but innocent quite different fish tank altogether.
Just to make it even more clearer than that-They may still to this day be suspects, that does not mean they are not presumed innocent it means they are suspected of something.
"The court said it wasn't their job to determine whether the McCanns bore any criminal responsibility over their daughter's disappearance and said it would be wrong for anyone to draw any inferences about the couple's guilt or innocence from their ruling.
Yes, indeed correct again this was a civil court where the McCanns were not accused of anything as they were pursuing Amaral for money.
They have not been charged- arrested and taken to court accused and tried on Amarals book. It doesn't work that way see.
So let us do a round up...
CRIMINAL COURT:
No criminal court has accused the McCanns without presuming they are innocent. No Police force have declared them innocent as the case was archived, and they may be presumed innocent but still under suspicion.
CIVIL COURT:
In the civil court It wasn't their job to determine whether the McCanns bore any criminal responsibility .
I hope this is clearer now. So anyway regardless of all that the McCanns are not going to 'clear their name' because the ECHR don't do individual cases.
-
"The Supreme Court judges said that lifting their status as formal suspects does not mean that they were innocent."
Yes, correct, it doesn't say they are guilty either. It is just an archived, unsolved case and the parents have not been ruled out. Nothing illegal about that at all. It was their lawyer who claimed they were deemed innocent (cleared)not 'presumed innocent' but innocent quite different fish tank altogether.
Just to make it even more clearer than that-They may still to this day be suspects, that does not mean they are not presumed innocent it means they are suspected of something.
"The court said it wasn't their job to determine whether the McCanns bore any criminal responsibility over their daughter's disappearance and said it would be wrong for anyone to draw any inferences about the couple's guilt or innocence from their ruling.
Yes, indeed correct again this was a civil court where the McCanns were not accused of anything as they were pursuing Amaral for money.
They have not been charged- arrested and taken to court accused and tried on Amarals book. It doesn't work that way see.
So let us do a round up...
CRIMINAL COURT:
No criminal court has accused the McCanns without presuming they are innocent. No Police force have declared them innocent as the case was archived, and they may be presumed innocent but still under suspicion.
CIVIL COURT:
In the civil court It wasn't their job to determine whether the McCanns bore any criminal responsibility .
I hope this is clearer now. So anyway regardless of all that the McCanns are not going to 'clear their name' because the ECHR don't do individual cases.
Thank you for that post Miss Taken.
-
I assume that the archiving report is a legal document in the Portuguese justice system. The courts used this document to verify the facts contained in Amaral's book, which were gathered under judicial secrecy. Notwithstanding the fact that Amaral broke his duty of reserve and the DVDs of the files were not in the public domain when his book was published, what right did the SC have to retrospectively alter the content of the very report used to verify Amaral's opinions to the detriment of 2 named arguidos?
I don't know the status of an archiving report.
I don't know if they used the archiving report to verify the facts or not. In the proven facts it says;
(Items 27 & 28) It is proved that the facts in the book and in the documentary, concerning the investigation, are mostly facts that took place in the investigation and are documented as such.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=5931.0
The Appeal Court judges rejected the claim that Amaral breached his duty of reserve, and the Supreme Court judges agreed.
The Supreme Court judges didn't alter even one word of the content of the archiving dispatch.
-
"The Supreme Court judges said that lifting their status as formal suspects does not mean that they were innocent."
Yes, correct, it doesn't say they are guilty either. It is just an archived, unsolved case and the parents have not been ruled out. Nothing illegal about that at all. It was their lawyer who claimed they were deemed innocent (cleared)not 'presumed innocent' but innocent quite different fish tank altogether.
Just to make it even more clearer than that-They may still to this day be suspects, that does not mean they are not presumed innocent it means they are suspected of something.
"The court said it wasn't their job to determine whether the McCanns bore any criminal responsibility over their daughter's disappearance and said it would be wrong for anyone to draw any inferences about the couple's guilt or innocence from their ruling.
Yes, indeed correct again this was a civil court where the McCanns were not accused of anything as they were pursuing Amaral for money.
They have not been charged- arrested and taken to court accused and tried on Amarals book. It doesn't work that way see.
So let us do a round up...
CRIMINAL COURT:
No criminal court has accused the McCanns without presuming they are innocent. No Police force have declared them innocent as the case was archived, and they may be presumed innocent but still under suspicion.
CIVIL COURT:
In the civil court It wasn't their job to determine whether the McCanns bore any criminal responsibility .
I hope this is clearer now. So anyway regardless of all that the McCanns are not going to 'clear their name' because the ECHR don't do individual cases.
Please allow us to wait and see what will happen with the application made to the ECHR on behalf of the McCanns.
In my opinion you have entirely missed the ramifications of the comments made by the Portuguese supreme court judgement.
I'm no expert on this subject and patently neither are you.
Bearing that in mind, it would be rather appropriate if you would mention the forum protocol of stating "in my opinion" when it is ... unless you are able to provide cites substantiating what you have posted as fact.
-
Please allow us to wait and see what will happen with the application made to the ECHR on behalf of the McCanns.
In my opinion you have entirely missed the ramifications of the comments made by the Portuguese supreme court judgement.
I'm no expert on this subject and patently neither are you.
Bearing that in mind, it would be rather appropriate if you would mention the forum protocol of stating "in my opinion" when it is ... unless you are able to provide cites substantiating what you have posted as fact.
Have you actually read on what basis the Supreme Court made their judgement, and in reference to the E.C.H.R. case they used as a benchmark ?
-
Have you actually read on what basis the Supreme Court made their judgement, and in reference to the E.C.H.R. case they used as a benchmark ?
I thought everyone has. Haven't you ?
-
9 FEBRUARY 2017
Madeleine McCann’s parents have not been ruled innocent when it comes to their daughter’s disappearance, a judge in Portugal’s highest court has said.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/02/09/madeleine-mccanns-parents-have-not-ruled-innocent-judge-says/
9 February 2017
Judges made it clear in their decision their job was not to decide whether the McCanns bore any criminal responsibility over their daughter's disappearance and it would be wrong for anyone to draw any inferences about the couple's guilt or innocence from their ruling.
But they added: 'It should not be said that the appellants were cleared via the ruling announcing the archiving of the criminal case.
'In truth, that ruling was not made in virtue of Portugal's Public Prosecution Service having acquired the conviction that the appellants hadn't committed a crime.
'The archiving of the case was determined by the fact that public prosecutors hadn't managed to obtain sufficient evidence of the practice of crimes by the appellants.
'There is therefore a significant, and not merely a semantic difference, between the legally admissible foundations of the archive ruling.
'It doesn't therefore seem acceptable that the ruling, based on the insufficiency of evidence, should be equated to proof of innocence.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4206214/Court-says-Madeleine-McCann-s-parents-HAVEN-T-cleared.html#ixzz4sMyED0uo
February 9 2017
The Supreme Court judges said that lifting their status as formal suspects does not mean that they were innocent.
The court said it wasn't their job to determine whether the McCanns bore any criminal responsibility over their daughter's disappearance and said it would be wrong for anyone to draw any inferences about the couple's guilt or innocence from their ruling.
According to the Telegraph, they said: "It should not be said that the appellants were cleared via the ruling announcing the archiving of the criminal case. In truth, that ruling was not made in virtue of Portugal's Public Prosecution Service having acquired the conviction that the appellants hadn't committed a crime.
"The archiving of the case was determined by the fact that public prosecutors hadn't managed to obtain sufficient evidence of the practice of crimes by the appellants.
"There is therefore a significant, and not merely a semantic difference, between the legally admissible foundations of the archive ruling. It doesn't therefore seem acceptable that the ruling, based on the insufficiency of evidence, should be equated to proof of innocence."
They added: "It's true that the aforementioned criminal inquiry ended up being archived, namely because none of the apparent evidence that led to the appellants being made 'arguidos' was subsequently confirmed or consolidated.
"However even the archive ruling raises serious concerns relating to the truth of the allegation that Madeleine was kidnapped."
http://www.independent.ie/world-news/europe/britain/madeleine-mccanns-parents-have-not-been-ruled-innocent-judge-says-35437360.html
It seems I was wrong about semantics not being an issue should the McCann request to be heard by the European Court be granted.
It is a word which has appeared in the offending opinion of the judges who should in my opinion have implemented their own caveat and borne in mind what they were judging and not that about which they admitted they had no locus.
It has taken ten years to get to this stage in Portugal; making a four year wait for the European Court to sit in judgement should the case be accepted.
If you were in a similar situation as the McCanns and were content to cowtow to such a ruling that would be a matter for you.
Were I in the McCann's situation I would be doing exactly what they are ... and challenging a supreme court ruling which had driven a coach and horses through my reputation and my honour.
Good references Brie. Personally, I don't see any problem where the SC judgement is concerned. The McCanns were clearly afforded the presumption of innocence at all stages of the initial enquiry but when made arguidos, Kate chose for whatever reason not to cooperate with the investigators.
The SC was correct to add in their judgement that the Archive Report did not provide an exoneration for the McCanns. What the Archive did was to set out the facts as were then known, it clearly stated that there was no evidence of criminal involvement by the parents. I don't have to add that that is not the same thing as saying they were cleared.
-
Please allow us to wait and see what will happen with the application made to the ECHR on behalf of the McCanns.
In my opinion you have entirely missed the ramifications of the comments made by the Portuguese supreme court judgement.
I'm no expert on this subject and patently neither are you.
Bearing that in mind, it would be rather appropriate if you would mention the forum protocol of stating "in my opinion" when it is ... unless you are able to provide cites substantiating what you have posted as fact.
What part isn't fact?
-
I thought everyone has. Haven't you ?
That is why I asked you. Evidently, you don't comprehend the implications.
The McCann's have no grounds to go to the E.C.H.R.
Never did.
All bluster and arrogance on their part.
I.M.H.O. obviously.
-
I don't know the status of an archiving report.
I don't know if they used the archiving report to verify the facts or not. In the proven facts it says;
(Items 27 & 28) It is proved that the facts in the book and in the documentary, concerning the investigation, are mostly facts that took place in the investigation and are documented as such.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=5931.0
The Appeal Court judges rejected the claim that Amaral breached his duty of reserve, and the Supreme Court judges agreed.
The Supreme Court judges didn't alter even one word of the content of the archiving dispatch.
How did the courts verify the facts in the book & documentary if not by using the official files? Are the contents of the official files not all legal documents?
The SC changed the filing article from 277/1 to 277/2 which effectively changed the opinion of the PP/AG at the time of filing regarding the reasons behind the filing. Innocence does not need to be proven when the nature of a crime, if indeed there was one, has not been established. Even nine years after the archival, the SC is not able to legally rule that the McCanns have not demonstrated their innocence - in fact, it's quite the opposite state of affairs.
I actually see this whole fiasco as a cop-out by the SC. By making the decision they did, Amaral finally had his sequestered assets released to him, so mission accomplished for him. The lawyers & the court system will be the
bodies fighting for their money which is of no concern to the SC. There is no guarantee any claim to the ECHR will be successful & even if it is, it won't be the SC's problem but merely another ruling for their archives. The state will foot any compensation awarded by ECHR, not Amaral.
All IMO.
-
Good references Brie. Personally, I don't see any problem where the SC judgement is concerned. The McCanns were clearly afforded the presumption of innocence at all stages of the initial enquiry but when made arguidos, Kate chose for whatever reason not to cooperate with the investigators.
The SC was correct to add in their judgement that the Archive Report did not provide an exoneration for the McCanns. What the Archive did was to set out the facts as were then known, it clearly stated that there was no evidence of criminal involvement by the parents. I don't have to add that that is not the same thing as saying they were cleared.
lol I thought I just explained that John?
So to be very ,very clear having no evidence means having no evidence, it does not mean having no evidence means innocence has been established, legal argument would establish this and this would be done in a criminal court.
I would also like to add to that if person A punches person B and their are no witnesses - person A would be found innocent even though they did punch person B 8)--))
-
I do wonder why the Mccann supporters believe the McCann'S have a cat in hell's chance of getting anywhere with the E.C.H.R.
-
I do wonder why the Mccann supporters believe the McCann'S have a cat in hell's chance of getting anywhere with the E.C.H.R.
When the alleged abductors are finally arrested, the McCanns will also have the option of suing the Portuguese police for the incompetent way the first team handled matters. Think Harvey Proctor.
-
When the alleged abductors are finally arrested, the McCanns will also have the option of suing the Portuguese police for the incompetent way the first team handled matters. Think Harvey Proctor.
Dream your little dream.
Ain't going to happen.
-
How did the courts verify the facts in the book & documentary if not by using the official files? Are the contents of the official files not all legal documents?
The SC changed the filing article from 277/1 to 277/2 which effectively changed the opinion of the PP/AG at the time of filing regarding the reasons behind the filing. Innocence does not need to be proven when the nature of a crime, if indeed there was one, has not been established. Even nine years after the archival, the SC is not able to legally rule that the McCanns have not demonstrated their innocence - in fact, it's quite the opposite state of affairs.
I actually see this whole fiasco as a cop-out by the SC. By making the decision they did, Amaral finally had his sequestered assets released to him, so mission accomplished for him. The lawyers & the court system will be the
bodies fighting for their money which is of no concern to the SC. There is no guarantee any claim to the ECHR will be successful & even if it is, it won't be the SC's problem but merely another ruling for their archives. The state will foot any compensation awarded by ECHR, not Amaral.
All IMO.
Obviously they used the files, which isn't exactly the same as saying they used the archiving dispatch. There are many documents in the files, only one of which is the archiving report,
The SC changed the article but that didn't change the contents of the report. A case archived under 277/1 cannot be reopened. The PP and the AG both stated that the case could be reopened, which is why the SC changed the article to 277/2 under which it could be reopened.
The only people claiming that the archiving report found the McCann's innocent was....the McCann's lawyer. As the SC judges pointed out, they may well be innocent, but the archiving report can't be offered as proof that they are.
In my opinion the blame for the fiasco cannot be laid at the door of the SC. The blame lies with those who tried to 'prove' that they were innocent because that was the only way they could 'prove' defamation.
-
lol I thought I just explained that John?
So to be very ,very clear having no evidence means having no evidence, it does not mean having no evidence means innocence has been established, legal argument would establish this and this would be done in a criminal court.
I would also like to add to that if person A punches person B and their are no witnesses - person A would be found innocent even though they did punch person B 8)--))
A judge can decide based on evidence bruises etc. You might be wrong about that.
-
A judge can decide based on evidence bruises etc. You might be wrong about that.
It can also be determined via a private prosecution for damages.
-
It can also be determined via a private prosecution for damages.
They use a different word in that case, but it means about the same as guilty to most people.
-
A judge can decide based on evidence bruises etc. You might be wrong about that.
Not of person A's lawyer said the bruises were self inflicted and or were done by someone else. 8(0(*
-
That is why I asked you. Evidently, you don't comprehend the implications.
The McCann's have no grounds to go to the E.C.H.R.
Never did.
All bluster and arrogance on their part.
I.M.H.O. obviously.
Time will tell won't it.
The McCann legals think they have. The Mccanns think they have. Not that it matters I think they have.
So let's just wait and see if their application is accepted by the court; I think there is every chance it will be.
-
When the alleged abductors are finally arrested, the McCanns will also have the option of suing the Portuguese police for the incompetent way the first team handled matters. Think Harvey Proctor.
If an abductor is arrested it doesn't necessarily follow that the first investigation was incompetent.
Harvey Proctor's case is entirely different in that there's a report in existence which strongly criticises the Met's handling of Operation Midland as well as the Met having publicly apologised to him. I expect he'll get an out of court settlement as others already have.
-
How did the courts verify the facts in the book & documentary if not by using the official files? Are the contents of the official files not all legal documents?
The SC changed the filing article from 277/1 to 277/2 which effectively changed the opinion of the PP/AG at the time of filing regarding the reasons behind the filing. Innocence does not need to be proven when the nature of a crime, if indeed there was one, has not been established. Even nine years after the archival, the SC is not able to legally rule that the McCanns have not demonstrated their innocence - in fact, it's quite the opposite state of affairs.
I actually see this whole fiasco as a cop-out by the SC. By making the decision they did, Amaral finally had his sequestered assets released to him, so mission accomplished for him. The lawyers & the court system will be the
bodies fighting for their money which is of no concern to the SC. There is no guarantee any claim to the ECHR will be successful & even if it is, it won't be the SC's problem but merely another ruling for their archives. The state will foot any compensation awarded by ECHR, not Amaral.
All IMO.
"I actually see this whole fiasco as a cop-out by the SC. By making the decision they did, Amaral finally had his sequestered assets released to him, so mission accomplished for him. The lawyers & the court system will be the
bodies fighting for their money which is of no concern to the SC. There is no guarantee any claim to the ECHR will be successful & even if it is, it won't be the SC's problem but merely another ruling for their archives. The state will foot any compensation awarded by ECHR, not Amaral." Misty
Maybe I'm just in a cynical mood tonight, Misty. But all of that makes perfect sense to me.
-
Time will tell won't it.
The McCann legals think they have. The Mccanns think they have. Not that it matters I think they have.
So let's just wait and see if their application is accepted by the court; I think there is every chance it will be.
No way Jose.
-
Not of person A's lawyer said the bruises were self inflicted and or were done by someone else. 8(0(*
Judges are wise people in most cases.
-
Judges are wise people in most cases.
The law requires a charge to be proved beyond reasonable doubt. An accusation by one person against another person with no witnesses doesn't meet that criterion.
-
How did the courts verify the facts in the book & documentary if not by using the official files? Are the contents of the official files not all legal documents?
The SC changed the filing article from 277/1 to 277/2 which effectively changed the opinion of the PP/AG at the time of filing regarding the reasons behind the filing. Innocence does not need to be proven when the nature of a crime, if indeed there was one, has not been established. Even nine years after the archival, the SC is not able to legally rule that the McCanns have not demonstrated their innocence - in fact, it's quite the opposite state of affairs.
I actually see this whole fiasco as a cop-out by the SC. By making the decision they did, Amaral finally had his sequestered assets released to him, so mission accomplished for him. The lawyers & the court system will be the
bodies fighting for their money which is of no concern to the SC. There is no guarantee any claim to the ECHR will be successful & even if it is, it won't be the SC's problem but merely another ruling for their archives. The state will foot any compensation awarded by ECHR, not Amaral.
All IMO.
How did it change the opinion of the PP?
-
I thought everyone has. Haven't you ?
Doesn't exactly answer the question...
-
How did it change the opinion of the PP?
The AG decided that the case was to be filed under 277/1 - the crime has not been verified or the defendant has not committed the crime under investigation.
The SC decided, in their not-so-infinite wisdom, that what had actually been shown in the volumes of files which they hadn't read, was that the public prosecution hadn't collected sufficient signs of the verification of the crime or of its agents - thus altering the context of the application of law in a legal document.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/LEGAL_SUMMARY.htm
*snipped
The archiving reported is worded as follows:-
- Despite all of this, it was not possible to obtain any piece of evidence that would allow for a medium man, under the light of the criteria of logics, of normality and of the general rules of experience, to formulate any lucid, sensate, serious and honest conclusion about the circumstances under which the child was removed from the apartment (whether dead or alive, whether killed in a neglectful homicide or an intended homicide, whether the victim of a targeted abduction or an opportunistic abduction), nor even to produce a consistent prognosis about her destiny and inclusively - the most dramatic - to establish whether she is still alive or if she is dead, as seems more likely.
But therefore we do not possess any minimally solid and rigorous foundation in order to be able to state, with the safety that is requested, which was or were the exact and precise crime(s) that was or were practised on the person of the minor Madeleine McCann - apart from the supposed but dismissed crime of exposure or abandonment - or to hold anyone responsible over its authorship.
-
"the supposed but dismissed crime of exposure or abandonment" some people need to remember that the PJ dismissed this supposed crime.
-
"the supposed but dismissed crime of exposure or abandonment" some people need to remember that the PJ dismissed this supposed crime.
Have you forgotten what the Portuguese former Minister said on this ?
-
Have you forgotten what the Portuguese former Minister said on this ?
No because I have never known it. You tell me please? Does he have jurisdiction in this case or was it just his opinion?
-
The AG decided that the case was to be filed under 277/1 - the crime has not been verified or the defendant has not committed the crime under investigation.
The SC decided, in their not-so-infinite wisdom, that what had actually been shown in the volumes of files which they hadn't read, was that the public prosecution hadn't collected sufficient signs of the verification of the crime or of its agents - thus altering the context of the application of law in a legal document.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/LEGAL_SUMMARY.htm
*snipped
The archiving reported is worded as follows:-
- Despite all of this, it was not possible to obtain any piece of evidence that would allow for a medium man, under the light of the criteria of logics, of normality and of the general rules of experience, to formulate any lucid, sensate, serious and honest conclusion about the circumstances under which the child was removed from the apartment (whether dead or alive, whether killed in a neglectful homicide or an intended homicide, whether the victim of a targeted abduction or an opportunistic abduction), nor even to produce a consistent prognosis about her destiny and inclusively - the most dramatic - to establish whether she is still alive or if she is dead, as seems more likely.
But therefore we do not possess any minimally solid and rigorous foundation in order to be able to state, with the safety that is requested, which was or were the exact and precise crime(s) that was or were practised on the person of the minor Madeleine McCann - apart from the supposed but dismissed crime of exposure or abandonment - or to hold anyone responsible over its authorship.
None of that demonstrates that the judges changed any opinion.
Duarte claimed that the archiving dispatch exonerated the McCanns (and Murat) because it was filed under 277/1.
The judges pointed out that the important part of the archiving dispatch was it's contents. The contents were consistent with filing it under 277/2. The fact that the prosecutors and the AG announced that the investigation could be reopened further confirms this.
It's a bit like describing a zebra in an essay; horse-like, black and white stripes, etc., then saying in the final paragraph that it's a lion. The final paragraph is wrong.
-
None of that demonstrates that the judges changed any opinion.
Duarte claimed that the archiving dispatch exonerated the McCanns (and Murat) because it was filed under 277/1.
The judges pointed out that the important part of the archiving dispatch was it's contents. The contents were consistent with filing it under 277/2. The fact that the prosecutors and the AG announced that the investigation could be reopened further confirms this.
It's a bit like describing a zebra in an essay; horse-like, black and white stripes, etc., then saying in the final paragraph that it's a lion. The final paragraph is wrong.
The whole appeal to the SC appears to have been like asking for a pass mark exam to be remarked to get a better score and ending up with a fail.
-
The first phase of procedure in Portugal is the inquiry. The norm is that the PP has 8 months for this. The McCann case was 15 months quite why that should have been is not apparent but is covered by Article 276 of the CPP.
At the end of the allocated period the PP must either charge someone under the provisions of Art 276 or file/close/archive the inquiry under the provisions of Art 277 of the CPP. Article 277 has two subsections 277/1 and 277/2.
There are three reasons for filing under 277/1 and one reason under 277/2.
277/1 reasons for filing:
1. The crime has not been verified.
2. The procedure is legally inadmissible.
3. The defendant has not committed the crime under investigation.
277/2 reason for filing:
1. The PP was unable to collect sufficient signs of the verification of the crime or its agents.
That all seems straightforward to me, including in the light of events, but I’ll leave posters to weave of it what they wish and bung this in just to keep the pot boiling, to mis metaphors ?{)(** :
http://www.ecba.org/extdocserv/projects/JusticeForum/Portugal180309.pdf
-
The whole appeal to the SC appears to have been like asking for a pass mark exam to be remarked to get a better score and ending up with a fail.
Sounds as bit like the Remoaners and their call for another referendum. @)(++(*
If you don't like the result have another one!!
-
None of that demonstrates that the judges changed any opinion.
Duarte claimed that the archiving dispatch exonerated the McCanns (and Murat) because it was filed under 277/1.
The judges pointed out that the important part of the archiving dispatch was it's contents. The contents were consistent with filing it under 277/2. The fact that the prosecutors and the AG announced that the investigation could be reopened further confirms this.
It's a bit like describing a zebra in an essay; horse-like, black and white stripes, etc., then saying in the final paragraph that it's a lion. The final paragraph is wrong.
The SC have changed the context of part of a legal document used to make a judgement in court based on the facts contained in said document. That is unlawful. Elements of the proven facts could not be challenged e.g the dogs alerted to cadaver, during the trial. The crime was neither specified nor verified so the McCanns should not have been discriminated against by virtue of being named arguidos rather than merely being witnesses alonside many others who had been questioned. 277/1 was correct IMO.
-
The SC have changed the context of part of a legal document used to make a judgement in court based on the facts contained in said document. That is unlawful. Elements of the proven facts could not be challenged e.g the dogs alerted to cadaver, during the trial. The crime was neither specified nor verified so the McCanns should not have been discriminated against by virtue of being named arguidos rather than merely being witnesses alonside many others who had been questioned. 277/1 was correct IMO.
The McCann's weren't on trial, were they.
-
The SC have changed the context of part of a legal document used to make a judgement in court based on the facts contained in said document. That is unlawful. Elements of the proven facts could not be challenged e.g the dogs alerted to cadaver, during the trial. The crime was neither specified nor verified so the McCanns should not have been discriminated against by virtue of being named arguidos rather than merely being witnesses alonside many others who had been questioned. 277/1 was correct IMO.
They were suspects in their child's disappearance. Arguido status is a protection under Portuguese law, so many still fail to understand this.
-
The SC have changed the context of part of a legal document used to make a judgement in court based on the facts contained in said document. That is unlawful. Elements of the proven facts could not be challenged e.g the dogs alerted to cadaver, during the trial. The crime was neither specified nor verified so the McCanns should not have been discriminated against by virtue of being named arguidos rather than merely being witnesses alonside many others who had been questioned. 277/1 was correct IMO.
On what basis?
The archiving despatch was at pains to point out that neither the nature of the crime nor its perpetrators could be determined.
That comes under 277/2.
The full wording under 277/1 is : "The PP shall file the inquiry as soon as it has gathered evidence enough that the alleged crime was not committed at all".
-
The SC have changed the context of part of a legal document used to make a judgement in court based on the facts contained in said document. That is unlawful. Elements of the proven facts could not be challenged e.g the dogs alerted to cadaver, during the trial. The crime was neither specified nor verified so the McCanns should not have been discriminated against by virtue of being named arguidos rather than merely being witnesses alonside many others who had been questioned. 277/1 was correct IMO.
You are entitled to express your opinion, but when it comes to matters of Portuguese law I think Portugal's Supreme Court judges are more likely to have formed the correct opinion than you are.
-
The McCanns behaviour has raised many an eyebrow. Your three-year-old kid disappears and instead of getting involved in the search and investigation they go out jogging in full view of the press. I don't know about anyone else but to me that smacks of extreme callousness.
The European Court is only interested in human rights. What about Maddie's human rights? Wasn't she entitled to a reasonable level of care from her parents?
-
The McCanns behaviour has raised many an eyebrow. Your three-year-old kid disappears and instead of getting involved in the search and investigation they go out jogging in full view of the press. I don't know about anyone else but to me that smacks of extreme callousness.
The European Court is only interested in human rights. What about Maddie's human rights? Wasn't she entitled to a reasonable level of care from her parents?
It seems socializing came first before childcare, for all the group.
-
On what basis?
The archiving despatch was at pains to point out that neither the nature of the crime nor its perpetrators could be determined.
That comes under 277/2.
The full wording under 277/1 is : "The PP shall file the inquiry as soon as it has gathered evidence enough that the alleged crime was not committed at all".
You're wrong. Alice. Use the source, not a book.
https://translate.google.co.uk/translate?hl=en&sl=pt&u=http://www.pgdlisboa.pt/leis/lei_mostra_articulado.php%3Fartigo_id%3D199A0277%26nid%3D199%26tabela%3Dleis%26pagina%3D1%26ficha%3D1%26nversao%3D&prev=search
Article 277
Archiving of the survey
1 - The Prosecutor's Office shall, by order, close the investigation, as soon as it has gathered sufficient evidence that it has not verified a crime, that the accused has not practiced it in any way or that the procedure is legally inadmissible.
2. The investigation shall also be closed if it has not been possible for the Public Prosecution Service to obtain sufficient evidence of the crime or of who the agents were.
3 - The order of filing shall be communicated to the accused, to the assistant, to the complainant with the right to become an assistant and to whom he / she has indicated the purpose of deducing civil claim under article 75, as well as to the respective defender or lawyer .
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The disappearance of a child is not a crime in itself. The nature of any crime had not been verified at the time of the archiving.
-
You're wrong. Alice. Use the source, not a book.
https://translate.google.co.uk/translate?hl=en&sl=pt&u=http://www.pgdlisboa.pt/leis/lei_mostra_articulado.php%3Fartigo_id%3D199A0277%26nid%3D199%26tabela%3Dleis%26pagina%3D1%26ficha%3D1%26nversao%3D&prev=search
Article 277
Archiving of the survey
1 - The Prosecutor's Office shall, by order, close the investigation, as soon as it has gathered sufficient evidence that it has not verified a crime, that the accused has not practiced it in any way or that the procedure is legally inadmissible.
2. The investigation shall also be closed if it has not been possible for the Public Prosecution Service to obtain sufficient evidence of the crime or of who the agents were.
3 - The order of filing shall be communicated to the accused, to the assistant, to the complainant with the right to become an assistant and to whom he / she has indicated the purpose of deducing civil claim under article 75, as well as to the respective defender or lawyer .
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The disappearance of a child is not a crime in itself. The nature of any crime had not been verified at the time of the archiving.
I think 'verifying a crime' in 277/1 refers to the prosecutors not being able to verify that there was a crime.
The report suggests that the prosecutors thought there was a crime, but didn't have enough evidence to say what it was; 277/2
-
You're wrong. Alice. Use the source, not a book.
https://translate.google.co.uk/translate?hl=en&sl=pt&u=http://www.pgdlisboa.pt/leis/lei_mostra_articulado.php%3Fartigo_id%3D199A0277%26nid%3D199%26tabela%3Dleis%26pagina%3D1%26ficha%3D1%26nversao%3D&prev=search
Article 277
Archiving of the survey
1 - The Prosecutor's Office shall, by order, close the investigation, as soon as it has gathered sufficient evidence that it has not verified a crime, that the accused has not practiced it in any way or that the procedure is legally inadmissible.
2. The investigation shall also be closed if it has not been possible for the Public Prosecution Service to obtain sufficient evidence of the crime or of who the agents were.
3 - The order of filing shall be communicated to the accused, to the assistant, to the complainant with the right to become an assistant and to whom he / she has indicated the purpose of deducing civil claim under article 75, as well as to the respective defender or lawyer .
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The disappearance of a child is not a crime in itself. The nature of any crime had not been verified at the time of the archiving.
Where does the emboldened bit differ significantly from what I posted ?
-
I think 'verifying a crime' in 277/1 refers to the prosecutors not being able to verify that there was a crime.
The report suggests that the prosecutors thought there was a crime, but didn't have enough evidence to say what it was; 277/2
Well whatever the SC ruling stands and cannot be overturned.
-
Where does the emboldened bit differ significantly from what I posted ?
You posted "The PP shall file the inquiry as soon as it has gathered evidence enough that the alleged crime was not committed at all"."
What alleged crime was not committed at all?
-
I think 'verifying a crime' in 277/1 refers to the prosecutors not being able to verify that there was a crime.
The report suggests that the prosecutors thought there was a crime, but didn't have enough evidence to say what it was; 277/2
https://joana-morais.blogspot.co.uk/2017/03/on-mccanns-request-for-annulment-of.html
M Carvalho
*snipped
"Finally, the Appellants seem to have opened an unexpected Pandora's box, their actions may now force a written correction of the article that should have been used in the Archiving Dispatch" .
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Has that actually happened - because it's actually a disgusting abuse of the legal process.
-
You posted "The PP shall file the inquiry as soon as it has gathered evidence enough that the alleged crime was not committed at all"."
What alleged crime was not committed at all?
How would I know? To find the answer to your question you will need access to all the documentation the PP had. Good luck.
The inquiry is filed if the PP cannot gather enough evidence to determine whether an alleged crime has been committed. The rules are all encompassing not related to a specific case.
-
https://joana-morais.blogspot.co.uk/2017/03/on-mccanns-request-for-annulment-of.html
M Carvalho
*snipped
"Finally, the Appellants seem to have opened an unexpected Pandora's box, their actions may now force a written correction of the article that should have been used in the Archiving Dispatch" .
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Has that actually happened - because it's actually a disgusting abuse of the legal process.
Was it only published on a few suspect internet blogs or was it published elsewhere? Has anyone had sight of the original?
-
https://joana-morais.blogspot.co.uk/2017/03/on-mccanns-request-for-annulment-of.html
M Carvalho
*snipped
"Finally, the Appellants seem to have opened an unexpected Pandora's box, their actions may now force a written correction of the article that should have been used in the Archiving Dispatch" .
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Has that actually happened - because it's actually a disgusting abuse of the legal process.
Why? It happens regularly over here. Clarification is one of the things the Courts of Appeal are about.
-
Why? It happens regularly over here. Clarification is one of the things the Courts of Appeal are about.
The report has been on record for 9 years & the filing article was never questioned by the SC first time round when it came to the question of libel.
-
The report has been on record for 9 years & the filing article was never questioned by the SC first time round when it came to the question of libel.
The SC weren't involved first time round?
-
The SC weren't involved first time round?
I think you'll find they were very much involved in 2010 when dealing with the first part of the action.
-
I think you'll find they were very much involved in 2010 when dealing with the first part of the action.
..and pray tell, what happened then ? 8)-)))
-
I think you'll find they were very much involved in 2010 when dealing with the first part of the action.
Can you provide a cite?
-
Can you provide a cite?
http://madeleinemccann.org/blog/2014/04/20/mccanns-appeal-to-the-supreme-court/
-
..and pray tell, what happened then ? 8)-)))
Will you self-combust if I don't answer your prayers?
-
Will you self-combust if I don't answer your prayers?
Hardly, as that is your forte.
-
Hardly, as that is your forte.
Aren't you supposed to qualify that with a cite?
-
Aren't you supposed to qualify that with a cite?
Did yoiu when you referred to me in those terms ? 8(0(*
-
I think you'll find they were very much involved in 2010 when dealing with the first part of the action.
A request was lodged with the SC for an 'exceptional review' of the Appeal Court's decision to overturn the book ban. The Supreme Court refused the review.
http://madeleinemccann.org/blog/2014/04/20/mccanns-appeal-to-the-supreme-court/
-
The report has been on record for 9 years & the filing article was never questioned by the SC first time round when it came to the question of libel.
So?
-
Did yoiu when you referred to me in those terms ? 8(0(*
I asked you a question rather than posting a statement as fact.
-
I asked you a question rather than posting a statement as fact.
Didn't sound like that to me.
-
A request was lodged with the SC for an 'exceptional review' of the Appeal Court's decision to overturn the book ban. The Supreme Court refused the review.
http://madeleinemccann.org/blog/2014/04/20/mccanns-appeal-to-the-supreme-court/
Fair enough - but 2 sets of Appeal Court judges must have read the report & didn't raise the issue.
-
Didn't sound like that to me.
Perhaps you'd tell us what my question did sound like to you before you delete everything.
-
Fair enough - but 2 sets of Appeal Court judges must have read the report & didn't raise the issue.
I'm not so well up on their judgements. Did Duarte use 'the archiving dispatch cleared them' argument in her appeals to those courts? Bear in mind the SC judges wouldn't have examined it if she hadn't tried to use it as 'evidence of innocence'.
-
Perhaps you'd tell us what my question did sound like to you before you delete everything.
You made a goading post. Would you like me to delete it for you ?
-
You made a goading post. Would you like me to delete it for you ?
It was a perfectly reasonable response to your goading post.
-
I'm not so well up on their judgements. Did Duarte use 'the archiving dispatch cleared them' argument in her appeals to those courts? Bear in mind the SC judges wouldn't have examined it if she hadn't tried to use it as 'evidence of innocence'.
Neither am I well-informed about the first set. However, the paragraphs in the archiving report concerning the lack of evidence regarding a specific crime must surely have been given great consideration when judging if the book was factual or libellous. When I have more time I will read the transcripts.
-
It was a perfectly reasonable response to your goading post.
What was goading about...........
'pray tell and what happened then ? '
-
What was goading about...........
'pray tell and what happened then ? '
If you can't see it then I can't help you.
-
If you can't see it then I can't help you.
I appear to have touched a sore point. Would you care to explain ?
-
With reference to the Morais blog item featuring M Carvalho ... still no link to the original?
-
With reference to the Morais blog item featuring M Carvalho ... still no link to the original?
I don't think there is one Brietta. I have googled sections both in English & after translating them into Portuguese but there are no results other than the Morais source.
-
I don't think there is one Brietta. I have googled sections both in English & after translating them into Portuguese but there are no results other than the Morais source.
So did I Misty. With the same result.
-
Judges are wise people in most cases.
Have you ever read John Grishams "The Whistler"? John was a lawyer himself and has said that he bases many of his books on real cases.
"The Whistler" is about a corrupt Lawyer who fixes cases to obtain rewards.
Seems the States have an official body that watches Lawyers. It is called the "Board on Judicial conduct" and its purpose is to investigate corrupt Lawyers. And there are quite a few.
What happens in one country is likely to happen in others.
I agree, most Judges are wise people.
Additionally, I seem to remember that a certain PJ senior OPfficer who we have mentioned on here before, had developed a massive data base which recorded the failings, (sexual inclinations, weaknesses and fiddles etc) of senior people within PT. and then was in a really powerful position to influence these people.
Because I can no longer find details of this on the internet, I cannot mention his name.
So a Judge who for instance was having affairs, or liked children too much, would be easy to persuade I would think.
It also seems that some PT Judges turn a blind eye to torture etc and accept unproven so called evidence when presented it by PJ Officers.
-
No because I have never known it. You tell me please? Does he have jurisdiction in this case or was it just his opinion?
Good question.
Seems that the former Prime Minister was just stating an opinion Rob, cos no response from stephen to your question
-
Sounds as bit like the Remoaners and their call for another referendum. @)(++(*
If you don't like the result have another one!!
Hands up, I was guilty of that and I was wrong
But, my Gawd, where ever the Pro Brexiteers wrong. Headlines last week that some families will be £50 per week worse off because of leaving The EU. That is enough to break some families.
-
So did I Misty. With the same result.
It's funny what you can find when googling a name & find something unconnected.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/25/world/europe/sex-after-50-portugal-european-court.html
What stood out for me in the article (aside from how women are perceived by the judicial system in Portugal) was that the appellant apparently intends to go back to the Portuguese courts to re-open the case after the ECHR ruling.
-
The McCanns behaviour has raised many an eyebrow. Your three-year-old kid disappears and instead of getting involved in the search and investigation they go out jogging in full view of the press. I don't know about anyone else but to me that smacks of extreme callousness.
The European Court is only interested in human rights. What about Maddie's human rights? Wasn't she entitled to a reasonable level of care from her parents?
It is a medically known method of helping overcome anxiety and depression
From Google:
According to some studies, regular exercise works as well as medication for some people to reduce symptoms of anxiety and depression, and the effects can be long lasting. One vigorous exercise session can help alleviate symptoms for hours, and a regular schedule may significantly reduce them over time.
The Mccanns did exactly the right thing, in jogging, to clear their brains for the search and enable them to carry on being as near normal as possible with the twins
-
Hands up, I was guilty of that and I was wrong
But, my Gawd, where ever the Pro Brexiteers wrong. Headlines last week that some families will be £50 per week worse off because of leaving The EU. That is enough to break some families.
A price well worth paying if it was true.
-
A price well worth paying if it was true.
Worth paying for what John ?
People being worse off ?
-
Worth paying for what John ?
People being worse off ?
Hear, Hear.
It might not affect the rich so much, but some poor folk will be destroyed by losing £50 per week.
-
Hear, Hear.
It might not affect the rich so much, but some poor folk will be destroyed by losing £50 per week.
We seem to be wandering off topic, but I have to mention that the loss of £50 per week by 2020 for some families is isn't just caused by Brexit, it's only responsible for inflation;
Inflation is expected to continue to rise with the Brexit effect, a lack of available social housing and the costs of privately renting escalating ever upwards in comparison with wages, the poorest families and individuals are expected to bear the brunt, the report indicates.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/austerity-welfare-benefit-cuts-poor-families-worse-off-under-tories-a7938656.html
-
The McCanns have often said that the only thing that matters is the search for their daughter. They said after the first judgement two years ago that their action against Amaral wasn't about money, it was "entirely focused on the effect of the libels on our other children and the damage that was done to the search for Madeleine". Of course that wasn't the full story because "The court said it was not proven that the allegations made in the book “contributed to hindering, in any way, the course of the investigation” into Madeleine’s disappearance". In addition they received no award for their other children.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/apr/28/madeleine-mccann-parents-win-libel-damages-goncalo-amaral-trial
Two years on they have gained nothing; in fact they are worse off both financially and reputationally. I assume they've paid the bill which arose after their injunction attempts, when the Appeal Court ordered them to pay the costs for those various hearings, but they now owe the costs of their opponents for a further three hearings plus 50% of their costs as a contribution to the cost of their lawyers. [paragraph c) of paragraph 3 of the article 26 of Regulation of Lawsuit Costs] http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=6307.0
They have now decided to take on the State of Portugal itself at the ECHR. That is clearly not about money, the search for their daughter or the effect of libels on their other children, it's now about their reputations only. Quite which of their human rights they think the State of Portugal has denied them I can't work out.
-
The McCanns have often said that the only thing that matters is the search for their daughter. They said after the first judgement two years ago that their action against Amaral wasn't about money, it was "entirely focused on the effect of the libels on our other children and the damage that was done to the search for Madeleine". Of course that wasn't the full story because "The court said it was not proven that the allegations made in the book “contributed to hindering, in any way, the course of the investigation” into Madeleine’s disappearance". In addition they received no award for their other children.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/apr/28/madeleine-mccann-parents-win-libel-damages-goncalo-amaral-trial
Two years on they have gained nothing; in fact they are worse off both financially and reputationally. I assume they've paid the bill which arose after their injunction attempts, when the Appeal Court ordered them to pay the costs for those various hearings, but they now owe the costs of their opponents for a further three hearings plus 50% of their costs as a contribution to the cost of their lawyers. [paragraph c) of paragraph 3 of the article 26 of Regulation of Lawsuit Costs] http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=6307.0
They have now decided to take on the State of Portugal itself at the ECHR. That is clearly not about money, the search for their daughter or the effect of libels on their other children, it's now about their reputations only. Quite which of their human rights they think the State of Portugal has denied them I can't work out.
We just have to wait and see.
-
We just have to wait and see.
At least it can't be blamed on Amaral or the Portuguese Judiciary if the ECHR reject their application or rule against the McCanns. That will make a refreshing change.
-
At least it can't be blamed on Amaral or the Portuguese Judiciary if the ECHR reject their application or rule against the McCanns. That will make a refreshing change.
Oh I think you will find they will have botched or bent something.
-
The McCanns have often said that the only thing that matters is the search for their daughter. They said after the first judgement two years ago that their action against Amaral wasn't about money, it was "entirely focused on the effect of the libels on our other children and the damage that was done to the search for Madeleine". Of course that wasn't the full story because "The court said it was not proven that the allegations made in the book “contributed to hindering, in any way, the course of the investigation” into Madeleine’s disappearance". In addition they received no award for their other children.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/apr/28/madeleine-mccann-parents-win-libel-damages-goncalo-amaral-trial
Two years on they have gained nothing; in fact they are worse off both financially and reputationally. I assume they've paid the bill which arose after their injunction attempts, when the Appeal Court ordered them to pay the costs for those various hearings, but they now owe the costs of their opponents for a further three hearings plus 50% of their costs as a contribution to the cost of their lawyers. [paragraph c) of paragraph 3 of the article 26 of Regulation of Lawsuit Costs] http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=6307.0
They have now decided to take on the State of Portugal itself at the ECHR. That is clearly not about money, the search for their daughter or the effect of libels on their other children, it's now about their reputations only. Quite which of their human rights they think the State of Portugal has denied them I can't work out.
Think a little more deeply Gunit.
of course it is about their search for Madeleine and the effect of libels on their children.
If their names are blackened unfairly the funds and support needed for their search will just evaporate.
With no funds and no support their search would be damned
-
Think a little more deeply Gunit.
of course it is about their search for Madeleine and the effect of libels on their children.
If their names are blackened unfairly the funds and support needed for their search will just evaporate.
With no funds and no support their search would be damned
What search?? Lets face it, the only time the McCann's made any attempt at an actual physical search was the morning after she disappeared. They are a disgrace imho.
-
What search?? Lets face it, the only time the McCann's made any attempt at an actual physical search was the morning after she disappeared. They are a disgrace imho.
They are intelligent Angelo. Why keep physuically searching the same spot that scores of people and they themselves had searched before?
They used their brains and organised other sorts of searches and raising global awareness that Madeleine was missing and they wanted her back
They even managed to get SY (and The PJ again) searching ... now that is a stage way beyond walking around looking themselves. Even you must agree with that!
We are not made aware any more what is entailed in their searching ... and who can blame them when everything they do is never right and torn to pieces by Trolls?
Maybe they have been instructed by SY to stop actual searching. We are not party to this information, and why should we be.
-
What search?? Lets face it, the only time the McCann's made any attempt at an actual physical search was the morning after she disappeared. They are a disgrace imho.
totally agree angelo
-
What search?? Lets face it, the only time the McCann's made any attempt at an actual physical search was the morning after she disappeared. They are a disgrace imho.
But somehow they have turned it into the most widely known missing person case ever. I suppose the empty tomb of Jesus of Nazareth might still top it.
I'll have another go:
But somehow they have turned it into the most widely known missing child case ever. Not bad considering they spent little time looking in the immediate surroundings.
That suggests they had some idea of where she went, and that was beyond their capability of physically looking IMO.
-
Think a little more deeply Gunit.
of course it is about their search for Madeleine and the effect of libels on their children.
If their names are blackened unfairly the funds and support needed for their search will just evaporate.
With no funds and no support their search would be damned
The effect of any 'name blackening' on either the funds or their support has already happened. Nothing the ECHR says will, in my opinion, change anyone's minds.
-
But somehow they have turned it into the most widely known missing person case ever. I suppose the empty tomb of Jesus of Nazareth might still top it.
I'll have another go:
But somehow they have turned it into the most widely known missing child case ever. Not bad considering they spent little time looking in the immediate surroundings.
That suggests they had some idea of where she went, and that was beyond their capability of physically looking IMO.
I would say their PR people turned it into the most widely known missing child case ever, beginning with Bell Pottinger;
The media handling of the story fell to Alex Woolfall from the Bell Pottinger PR group. Set up by Lord Bell - known as Mrs Thatcher's favourite adman for his work for the Conservatives - one of the services Bell Pottinger offers is "crisis management".
The holiday company Mark Warner - owners of the Ocean Club resort from where the four-year-old was taken - already retains one of Bell Pottinger's companies, Resonate, for ordinary PR. But when the scale of the story became apparent, Mr Woolfall, whose job title is "head of issues and crisis management", was immediately sent to Portugal with a support team.
His task there was to shield the family by ensuring a controlled but regular supply of statements and images. The PR company operates the equivalent of a 24-hour newsroom and one of its key roles is to anticipate media needs as well as react to inquiries. It was noticeable that on days when little appeared to be happening in Praia da Luz, the parents would on occasion walk before the cameras without speaking. It sounds a simple detail, but even that is enough to give the cameras fresh picture and enough to update a news bulletin.
A Mark Warner company official told The Scotsman: "Alex Woolfall is very experienced and was a fantastic asset to the family. "What Kate and Gerry wanted to do was to get this on the news agenda and make this as big as possible, so that people don't forget."
http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/press/1may7/SCOTSMAN_18_05_07.htm
-
I would say their PR people turned it into the most widely known missing child case ever, beginning with Bell Pottinger;
The media handling of the story fell to Alex Woolfall from the Bell Pottinger PR group. Set up by Lord Bell - known as Mrs Thatcher's favourite adman for his work for the Conservatives - one of the services Bell Pottinger offers is "crisis management".
The holiday company Mark Warner - owners of the Ocean Club resort from where the four-year-old was taken - already retains one of Bell Pottinger's companies, Resonate, for ordinary PR. But when the scale of the story became apparent, Mr Woolfall, whose job title is "head of issues and crisis management", was immediately sent to Portugal with a support team.
His task there was to shield the family by ensuring a controlled but regular supply of statements and images. The PR company operates the equivalent of a 24-hour newsroom and one of its key roles is to anticipate media needs as well as react to inquiries. It was noticeable that on days when little appeared to be happening in Praia da Luz, the parents would on occasion walk before the cameras without speaking. It sounds a simple detail, but even that is enough to give the cameras fresh picture and enough to update a news bulletin.
A Mark Warner company official told The Scotsman: "Alex Woolfall is very experienced and was a fantastic asset to the family. "What Kate and Gerry wanted to do was to get this on the news agenda and make this as big as possible, so that people don't forget."
http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/press/1may7/SCOTSMAN_18_05_07.htm
Bell-Pottinger were not employed by the McCanns in Luz. They were there to protect the reputation of MW so it would hardly have been in their interest to "promote" the disappearance of a child from one of their resorts.
-
Bell-Pottinger were not employed by the McCanns in Luz. They were there to protect the reputation of MW so it would hardly have been in their interest to "promote" the disappearance of a child from one of their resorts.
That company were paid £500,000 in advance to keep the McCann's in the news for at least one year (I believe).
Which says a great deal.
-
Bell-Pottinger were not employed by the McCanns in Luz. They were there to protect the reputation of MW so it would hardly have been in their interest to "promote" the disappearance of a child from one of their resorts.
There have been stories suggesting they were lulled into a false sense of security and that burglaries and even sexual attacks on children were kept quiet. I think Woolfall was long gone by then though.
-
Mixed messages as McCanns bid to take three-time court defeat to new appeal
There are multiple mixed messages as the parents of missing Madeleine McCann are reported to be taking their three-time court defeat in Portugal to the very last point of appeal: the European Court of Human Rights.
British tabloids are already presenting the new situation as ‘a given’ - the Mail for example, claims “it is understood that the result of the appeal will not be known for at least four years”.
But the truth is that it may not even get accepted.
The ECHR website carries no details of the action (believed to have been lodged in July) for the simple reason that it must first be considered to merit this final avenue of legal recourse - an outcome many believe is unlikely.
The reasons for this is that the 75-page judgement the McCann parents are challenging - handed down by Portugal’s highest court - cited tenets set out by the ECHR, not to mention rights enshrined in the Portuguese Constitution.
As a source explained, “the parents have been told three times that the theory published by former PJ police coordinator Gonçalo Amaral did not overstep the bounds of freedom of expression”.
“Furthermore, the UK press fails to understand that Maddie’s parents can only make a case against the Portuguese state, and not against an individual person.
“For Gonçalo Amaral, the case is over. Done and dusted. He won, and the McCanns can’t ignore the decision simply because they are going to the ECHR”.
“Maddie: A Verdade da Mentira” (Maddie: The Truth of the Lie) is back on sale and has purportedly been published and translated in France, the Netherlands, Germany, Denmark, Spain and Belgium.
An English translation has been available online for years, and “read by millions” (click here).
But according to the UK Sun - which led with an ‘exclusive’ yesterday on what it is calling “a last ditch appeal” against a “shameless ex police chief” - the reasons for the McCann’s new legal bid lie not simply in the fact that they “are desperately upset at Amaral’s claims”, but also that they are “shattered” that Portugal’s top judges did not accept that they had “successfully proved their innocence”.
This was perhaps the most devastating outcome of the Supreme Court ruling, and one which saw UK tabloids go into overdrive (click here).
In other words, this is no longer a fight against what the Sun terms “the outrageous slurs of the Truth of the Lie”, but a battle now against Portuguese Justice.
As a legal source has commented: "The McCanns have effectively to prove that the Supreme Court made a massive mistake".
The appeal bid could also be seen as another way of stalling the hugely expensive outcome of all these years of painful litigation.
The Sun explains: “So far no money has been paid by either party”.
In January, the Mail suggested that the McCanns “could now face financial ruin as they face paying Gonçalo Amaral huge court costs and could be sued themselves by the former policeman”.
Amaral, for the time being, is keeping his counsel.
Marking the 10-years since Madeleine’s disappearance during a family holiday in Praia da Luz, he gave a series of interviews to the Cofina media group in which he repeated his theory, as set out in the ‘Truth of the Lie’, explaining all the reasons for it (click here).
Since then he has kept a low profile.
Meantime, the Metropolitan Police are seeking renewed funding for Operation Grange - the probe that has already cost over £11 million looking for answers in this unparalleled case (click here), while streaming service Netflix is said to be making a new eight-part documentary on Madeleine’s disappearance, interviewing “key figures and investigators”.
Parents Kate and Gerry have “refused to be involved”, writes the Sun - highlighting the word refused in capitals.
The McCann’s reasoning, says the tabloid, is that Grange “is still active” - though a decision on whether or not to extend funding, and therefore keep Grange alive, has yet to be made public.
Ten years and four months on, and the disappearance of Madeleine McCann shows absolutely no sign of disappearing.
natasha.donn@algarveresident.com
http://portugalresident.com/mixed-messages-as-mccanns-bid-to-take-three-time-court-defeat-to-new-appeal
If the McCann's are relying on the ECHR ruling on the archive dispatch they could be disappointed. It doesn't rule on national laws.
-
It's a pleasant change to see the press getting their insight from here instead of vice versa. Amaral is indeed keeping his powder dry, after all, he is in a win win situation.
-
Mixed messages as McCanns bid to take three-time court defeat to new appeal
There are multiple mixed messages as the parents of missing Madeleine McCann are reported to be taking their three-time court defeat in Portugal to the very last point of appeal: the European Court of Human Rights.
British tabloids are already presenting the new situation as ‘a given’ - the Mail for example, claims “it is understood that the result of the appeal will not be known for at least four years”.
But the truth is that it may not even get accepted.
The ECHR website carries no details of the action (believed to have been lodged in July) for the simple reason that it must first be considered to merit this final avenue of legal recourse - an outcome many believe is unlikely.
The reasons for this is that the 75-page judgement the McCann parents are challenging - handed down by Portugal’s highest court - cited tenets set out by the ECHR, not to mention rights enshrined in the Portuguese Constitution.
As a source explained, “the parents have been told three times that the theory published by former PJ police coordinator Gonçalo Amaral did not overstep the bounds of freedom of expression”.
“Furthermore, the UK press fails to understand that Maddie’s parents can only make a case against the Portuguese state, and not against an individual person.
“For Gonçalo Amaral, the case is over. Done and dusted. He won, and the McCanns can’t ignore the decision simply because they are going to the ECHR”.
“Maddie: A Verdade da Mentira” (Maddie: The Truth of the Lie) is back on sale and has purportedly been published and translated in France, the Netherlands, Germany, Denmark, Spain and Belgium.
An English translation has been available online for years, and “read by millions” (click here).
But according to the UK Sun - which led with an ‘exclusive’ yesterday on what it is calling “a last ditch appeal” against a “shameless ex police chief” - the reasons for the McCann’s new legal bid lie not simply in the fact that they “are desperately upset at Amaral’s claims”, but also that they are “shattered” that Portugal’s top judges did not accept that they had “successfully proved their innocence”.
This was perhaps the most devastating outcome of the Supreme Court ruling, and one which saw UK tabloids go into overdrive (click here).
In other words, this is no longer a fight against what the Sun terms “the outrageous slurs of the Truth of the Lie”, but a battle now against Portuguese Justice.
As a legal source has commented: "The McCanns have effectively to prove that the Supreme Court made a massive mistake".
The appeal bid could also be seen as another way of stalling the hugely expensive outcome of all these years of painful litigation.
The Sun explains: “So far no money has been paid by either party”.
In January, the Mail suggested that the McCanns “could now face financial ruin as they face paying Gonçalo Amaral huge court costs and could be sued themselves by the former policeman”.
Amaral, for the time being, is keeping his counsel.
Marking the 10-years since Madeleine’s disappearance during a family holiday in Praia da Luz, he gave a series of interviews to the Cofina media group in which he repeated his theory, as set out in the ‘Truth of the Lie’, explaining all the reasons for it (click here).
Since then he has kept a low profile.
Meantime, the Metropolitan Police are seeking renewed funding for Operation Grange - the probe that has already cost over £11 million looking for answers in this unparalleled case (click here), while streaming service Netflix is said to be making a new eight-part documentary on Madeleine’s disappearance, interviewing “key figures and investigators”.
Parents Kate and Gerry have “refused to be involved”, writes the Sun - highlighting the word refused in capitals.
The McCann’s reasoning, says the tabloid, is that Grange “is still active” - though a decision on whether or not to extend funding, and therefore keep Grange alive, has yet to be made public.
Ten years and four months on, and the disappearance of Madeleine McCann shows absolutely no sign of disappearing.
natasha.donn@algarveresident.com
http://portugalresident.com/mixed-messages-as-mccanns-bid-to-take-three-time-court-defeat-to-new-appeal
If the McCann's are relying on the ECHR ruling on the archive dispatch they could be disappointed. It doesn't rule on national laws.
Except in "The PdL Bubble" 8(0(*
-
Except in "The PdL Bubble" 8(0(*
Yet if Portugal had exercised their own laws, Amaral would have lost.
-
Yet if Portugal had exercised their own laws, Amaral would have lost.
Really. ?{)(**
Meanwhile.....
...just as a reminder.
'Former minister of internal affairs Rui Pereira slammed Portuguese cops for not making Kate, 48, and 47-year-old dad Gerry suspects for abandonment.'
'Moita Flores, a former police chief, backed his countryman, Pereira and told the show that if Kate and Gerry had been Portuguese, they would have been arrested for abandonment.'
-
Yet if Portugal had exercised their own laws, Amaral would have lost.
Really? would you care to demonstrate that.
-
Yet if Portugal had exercised their own laws, Amaral would have lost.
In your opinion, unless you can offer some solid evidence for that claim?
-
In your opinion, unless you can offer some solid evidence for that claim?
https://ipi.media/portuguese-defamation-laws-still-reflect-authoritarian-concept-of-power-expert-says/
If it takes the ECHR to set precedent, existing law must have failed.
-
https://ipi.media/portuguese-defamation-laws-still-reflect-authoritarian-concept-of-power-expert-says/
If it takes the ECHR to set precedent, existing law must have failed.
We are still waiting for a demonstration it has failed.
-
https://ipi.media/portuguese-defamation-laws-still-reflect-authoritarian-concept-of-power-expert-says/
If it takes the ECHR to set precedent, existing law must have failed.
An interesting article which points out that;
Portuguese courts traditionally placed a high value on the rights to honour and reputation and considered freedom of expression a second-class freedom compared to those rights.
In the McCann v Amaral case the Portuguese Courts didn't make that mistake, did they?
-
An interesting article which points out that;
Portuguese courts traditionally placed a high value on the rights to honour and reputation and considered freedom of expression a second-class freedom compared to those rights.
In the McCann v Amaral case the Portuguese Courts didn't make that mistake, did they?
Who was the libeller & who were the libelled in the McCann v Amaral case?
-
We are still waiting for a demonstration it has failed.
Indeed we are. Hopefully the ECHR will see that the McCanns are private citizens rather than practising public figures & their human rights were violated in more than one way.
-
Who was the libeller & who were the libelled in the McCann v Amaral case?
Is that a serious question?
-
Really. ?{)(**
Meanwhile.....
...just as a reminder.
'Former minister of internal affairs Rui Pereira slammed Portuguese cops for not making Kate, 48, and 47-year-old dad Gerry suspects for abandonment.'
'Moita Flores, a former police chief, backed his countryman, Pereira and told the show that if Kate and Gerry had been Portuguese, they would have been arrested for abandonment.'
When they were eating in what was effectively their own garden, within Tapas group sight of 5A at only 50 metres away?
And the area around the only entrance that they believed unlocked (but closed) was illuminated by a street lamp immediately iopposite
Oh and I nearly forgot, they were checking every half hour and better with Matts 9 pm window check.
Of course they couldn't have made a charge of abandonment stick. No abandonment there, just a bad judgement ... and one that anyone might have made without proper understanding of the way those shutters worked, or knowledge of the previous burglaries in that very block in the preceding days.. PdL looks so quiet and peaceful, but there obviously is an undercurrent of criminality
-
Is that a serious question?
Yes, but maybe we are at cross purposes. Had the case been done & dusted prior to 2014, traditional Portuguese law would have applied. Now they are relying more heavily on ECHR directives which are clearly at odds with their own laws.
-
Indeed we are. Hopefully the ECHR will see that the McCanns are private citizens rather than practising public figures & their human rights were violated in more than one way.
Public figures;
a public figure, either a public official or any other person pervasively involved in public affairs, or. a limited purpose public figure, meaning those who have "thrust themselves to the forefront of particular public controversies in order to influence the resolution of the issues involved."
I cannot identify any violation of the McCann's human rights by the State of Portugal. Can you?
-
Yes, but maybe we are at cross purposes. Had the case been done & dusted prior to 2014, traditional Portuguese law would have applied. Now they are relying more heavily on ECHR directives which are clearly at odds with their own laws.
In your opinion.
I think many countries (including the UK) have misunderstood or misapplied Human Rights laws. Portugal's weakness appeared to be placing too much value on 'honour'. Over the years they have had to learn the value of freedom of speech.
-
Public figures;
a public figure, either a public official or any other person pervasively involved in public affairs, or. a limited purpose public figure, meaning those who have "thrust themselves to the forefront of particular public controversies in order to influence the resolution of the issues involved."
I cannot identify any violation of the McCann's human rights by the State of Portugal. Can you?
The referral to the question of innocence in a civil case springs to mind.
https://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/human-rights/what-are-human-rights/human-rights-act/article-6-right-fair-trial
*snipped*
Article 6 Right to a fair trial
The right to a fair trial is fundamental to the rule of law and to democracy itself.
The right applies to both criminal and civil cases, although certain specific minimum rights set out in Article 6 apply only in criminal cases.
-
In your opinion.
I think many countries (including the UK) have misunderstood or misapplied Human Rights laws. Portugal's weakness appeared to be placing too much value on 'honour'. Over the years they have had to learn the value of freedom of speech.
In the case we are talking about, the freedom of speech judgement was given precedence despite a breach of Portugal's own law criminal law regarding duty of reserve. It's hardly a level playing field when the goalposts are constantly shifting.
-
The referral to the question of innocence in a civil case springs to mind.
https://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/human-rights/what-are-human-rights/human-rights-act/article-6-right-fair-trial
*snipped*
Article 6 Right to a fair trial
The right to a fair trial is fundamental to the rule of law and to democracy itself.
The right applies to both criminal and civil cases, although certain specific minimum rights set out in Article 6 apply only in criminal cases.
Are you saying they were treated unfairly during the libel trial? Could you be more specific?
-
In the case we are talking about, the freedom of speech judgement was given precedence despite a breach of Portugal's own law criminal law regarding duty of reserve. It's hardly a level playing field when the goalposts are constantly shifting.
The judges ruled that the duty of reserve was not breached. Their laws, their call.
-
The judges ruled that the duty of reserve was not breached. Their laws, their call.
But the question could come down to were they right?
-
Biased or not if their judgements don't violate the McCann's human rights it's irrelevant to the ECHR.
This might not affect their human rights per se, but I shall never forget how The Mccanns were told dates for certain processes in the trial and after arranging time off work, childcare, companions, flights, hotels, Lawyers etc and psyching themselves up, at the very last minute they were told that the sitting that day had been cancelled.
This happened several times with the weakest of reasons given. On at least one occasion they actually arrived at Court to be turned away IIRC
This was a massively destructive thing for them and undoubtedly violated their Human Rights. It seemed a deliberate ploy IMO. I doubt that the ECHR will take this on board but IMO they should
-
Are you saying they were treated unfairly during the libel trial? Could you be more specific?
The presumption of innocence is as valid in a civil trial as in a criminal trial. The mere fact that the SC referred to the McCanns not having demonstrated their innocence is evidence that the scales were not balanced, especially in light of the fact that no crime had been proven to have occurred.
-
The presumption of innocence is as valid in a civil trial as in a criminal trial. The mere fact that the SC referred to the McCanns not having demonstrated their innocence is evidence that the scales were not balanced, especially in light of the fact that no crime had been proven to have occurred.
Subject matter and scope of the Directive
Snip
The approach taken in the new Directive is rather broad as it addresses not only the presumption of innocence and connected rights such as the right to remain silent, but it equally addresses the right to be present at one’s trial.
Snip
Finally, Article 2 of the Directive does not, like the previously adopted Roadmap Directives, link the applicability of the Directive to a notification of the authorities of their status of suspected or accused person. Instead it provides that the Directive is applicable once an individual is suspected or accused of a criminal offence, and it is applicable to all stages of the criminal proceedings, until the decision on the final determination of whether the person has committed the criminal offence becomes definitive.
The presumption of innocence and connected rights
Snip
It obliges MS to ensure that, until a person has been duly found guilty, the individual involved is not presented as guilty in public statements by public authorities or judicial decisions, other than those determining the person’s guilt. Recital 17 shows that ‘public authorities’ should be understood broadly as covering judicial authorities, police officers as well as ministers.
https://europeanlawblog.eu/2016/05/03/the-presumption-of-innocence-and-the-right-to-be-present-at-trial-directive/
I think the latest directive clarifying the presumption of innocence of suspects can only benefit the McCann case to be heard by the ECHR.
I doubt their legal team will have much difficulty in presenting that case and I doubt there will be much difficulty in in having it accepted ... particularly as the new directive clarifies the situation regarding civil and criminal cases ... as well as clarification on the innocent status of suspects and as you have pointed out in particular, "the fact that no crime had been proven to have occurred."
I think it was obvious from first reading of the SC judgement what was going to be read into it; proved by the subsequent headlines.
I wonder if the sc judges thought through in any depth how damaging their remarks would be to the McCanns or that they had opened the door to legal redress as a result.
I think the McCann case also represents not just them but the greater good ... if allowed to pass unchallenged it means a precedent is set for all ~ whether Portuguese or foreign ~ in the Portuguese court system.
-
The Supreme Court merely restated what was previously included within the Archive Report and that was that the parents had failed to demonstrate what they had claimed.
-
The Supreme Court merely restated what was previously included within the Archive Report and that was that the parents had failed to demonstrate what they had claimed.
They didn't have to 'demonstrate their innocence' in the eyes of the law they are innocent.
Misty posted:
"The SC changed the filing article from 277/1 to 277/2 which effectively changed the opinion of the PP/AG at the time of filing regarding the reasons behind the filing."
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=8465.msg423032#msg423032
... and reasoned a good case on why they had done that.
-
The Supreme Court merely restated what was previously included within the Archive Report and that was that the parents had failed to demonstrate what they had claimed.
PS ... Love the new avatar
-
They didn't have to 'demonstrate their innocence' in the eyes of the law they are innocent.
Misty posted:
"The SC changed the filing article from 277/1 to 277/2 which effectively changed the opinion of the PP/AG at the time of filing regarding the reasons behind the filing."
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=8465.msg423032#msg423032
... and reasoned a good case on why they had done that.
Demonstrate what they had claimed.
-
The presumption of innocence is as valid in a civil trial as in a criminal trial. The mere fact that the SC referred to the McCanns not having demonstrated their innocence is evidence that the scales were not balanced, especially in light of the fact that no crime had been proven to have occurred.
Do you have a cite for the words in bold please? I would need to see the context in order to reply.
..
-
Do you have a cite for the words in bold please? I would need to see the context in order to reply.
..
There were whole threads on this topic earlier this year wasn't it?
-
Subject matter and scope of the Directive
Snip
The approach taken in the new Directive is rather broad as it addresses not only the presumption of innocence and connected rights such as the right to remain silent, but it equally addresses the right to be present at one’s trial.
Snip
Finally, Article 2 of the Directive does not, like the previously adopted Roadmap Directives, link the applicability of the Directive to a notification of the authorities of their status of suspected or accused person. Instead it provides that the Directive is applicable once an individual is suspected or accused of a criminal offence, and it is applicable to all stages of the criminal proceedings, until the decision on the final determination of whether the person has committed the criminal offence becomes definitive.
The presumption of innocence and connected rights
Snip
It obliges MS to ensure that, until a person has been duly found guilty, the individual involved is not presented as guilty in public statements by public authorities or judicial decisions, other than those determining the person’s guilt. Recital 17 shows that ‘public authorities’ should be understood broadly as covering judicial authorities, police officers as well as ministers.
https://europeanlawblog.eu/2016/05/03/the-presumption-of-innocence-and-the-right-to-be-present-at-trial-directive/
I think the latest directive clarifying the presumption of innocence of suspects can only benefit the McCann case to be heard by the ECHR.
I doubt their legal team will have much difficulty in presenting that case and I doubt there will be much difficulty in in having it accepted ... particularly as the new directive clarifies the situation regarding civil and criminal cases ... as well as clarification on the innocent status of suspects and as you have pointed out in particular, "the fact that no crime had been proven to have occurred."
I think it was obvious from first reading of the SC judgement what was going to be read into it; proved by the subsequent headlines.
I wonder if the sc judges thought through in any depth how damaging their remarks would be to the McCanns or that they had opened the door to legal redress as a result.
I think the McCann case also represents not just them but the greater good ... if allowed to pass unchallenged it means a precedent is set for all ~ whether Portuguese or foreign ~ in the Portuguese court system.
Who presented them as guilty? Not the SC judges. In fact they specifically said;
It must be reminded that, in the present case, the issue isn't the appellants' penal liability, in other words their innocence or their guilt concerning the facts leading to the disappearance of her daughter doesn't have to be appreciated here. Page 69
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=7937.15
-
There were whole threads on this topic earlier this year wasn't it?
Are you suggesting that the onus is on me to find the cite so I can see the context?
-
Are you suggesting that the onus is on me to find the cite so I can see the context?
No. Just remember all what was said in the past.
-
No. Just remember all what was said in the past.
In my opinion it is failure to do just that which keeps our feet firmly cemented in groundhog day.
It has been a long and winding road ... but here we are with innocents knocking at the door of the ECHR ... there are those who may wish to airbrush how they got here from history ... but in my opinion the wording of the SC ruling is a neon road sign the meaning of which was eminently clear.
-
When they were eating in what was effectively their own garden, within Tapas group sight of 5A at only 50 metres away?
And the area around the only entrance that they believed unlocked (but closed) was illuminated by a street lamp immediately iopposite
Oh and I nearly forgot, they were checking every half hour and better with Matts 9 pm window check.
Of course they couldn't have made a charge of abandonment stick. No abandonment there, just a bad judgement ... and one that anyone might have made without proper understanding of the way those shutters worked, or knowledge of the previous burglaries in that very block in the preceding days.. PdL looks so quiet and peaceful, but there obviously is an undercurrent of criminality
It wasn't there own garden though , was it. fgs
As you well know it was an apartment , at the side of a main road.
As for the 30 min checks, they may as well have been half hour away.
They couldn't hear them cry, or know if they had an accident.
They left them on there own, they walked away to a tapas bar.
-
No. Just remember all what was said in the past.
Well said Rob
IMO the constant calls for cites when it has all been thoroughly discussed before, with conclusions reached based upon evidence, is just a method of disrupting and wasting the original posters time. Also diverting away from what that poster said.
Some of these topics have been disected and analysed 3 or 4 times before over the months/years and sound conclusions reached based upon solid evidence, yet it seems that some like to have "forgotten" the solid fact based conclusions reached.
An easy tool for disruption and breaking the flow innit?
-
In my opinion it is failure to do just that which keeps our feet firmly cemented in groundhog day.
It has been a long and winding road ... but here we are with innocents knocking at the door of the ECHR ... there are those who may wish to airbrush how they got here from history ... but in my opinion the wording of the SC ruling is a neon road sign the meaning of which was eminently clear.
I have repeated the same points many times on this forum. That has never allowed me to be excused from providing cites.
-
Well said Rob
IMO the constant calls for cites when it has all been thoroughly discussed before, with conclusions reached based upon evidence, is just a method of disrupting and wasting the original posters time. Also diverting away from what that poster said.
Some of these topics have been disected and analysed 3 or 4 times before over the months/years and sound conclusions reached based upon solid evidence, yet it seems that some like to have "forgotten" the solid fact based conclusions reached.
An easy tool for disruption and breaking the flow innit?
Perhaps you should take note on that Sadie.
You claim to have theories, yet are unable to provide evidence for those.
-
In my opinion it is failure to do just that which keeps our feet firmly cemented in groundhog day.
It has been a long and winding road ... but here we are with innocents knocking at the door of the ECHR ... there are those who may wish to airbrush how they got here from history ... but in my opinion the wording of the SC ruling is a neon road sign the meaning of which was eminently clear.
In what regard exactly ?
-
It wasn't there own garden though , was it. fgs
As you well know it was an apartment , at the side of a main road.
As for the 30 min checks, they may as well have been half hour away.
They couldn't hear them cry, or know if they had an accident.
They left them on there own, they walked away to a tapas bar.
Kiizzy you are confusing it with their HOME garden. It was their own garden for the period that they had booked and paid to stay there; their own holiday garden
It was not on a main road; it was on the corner of two minor roads with very little traffick.
They were just over 70 metres walking distance ... and that would take a matter of seconds rather than minutes
In their beds, they couldn't see them or hear them cry, that is true. However, many parents in their own homes cannot see or hear their children as they sleep either (Mansion type homes) with the living quarters a good distance from the bedrooms.
Also the method they used was superior to the well accepted Butlins method, where someone rode around on a bicylce approx every half hour and put an ear to the door/window. The Mccanns went into the apartment and checked that way.
Do please remember that after Matts listening check at the window, Gerry felt unable to accept that and personally went immediately afterwards to visually check the children. That is a sign of a caring parent.
They were NOT at the Tapas Bar, they were eating their meal at the Tapas RESTAURANT, which is a seperate building
May I suggest that you read back a bit before making sweeping statements which were ALL wrong, either partially or completely
-
Perhaps you should take note on that Sadie.
You claim to have theories, yet are unable to provide evidence for those.
I will not be disclosing them on here, my main theories are with SY and may yet be used to help prove some things against an abductor.
-
I will not be disclosing them on here, my main theories are with SY and may yet be used to help prove some things against an abductor.
Don't you agree this entire abductor thingy is wearing a bit thin? I have my own theory about what happened that night between 9.10 and 9.30pm.
-
Well said Rob
IMO the constant calls for cites when it has all been thoroughly discussed before, with conclusions reached based upon evidence, is just a method of disrupting and wasting the original posters time. Also diverting away from what that poster said.
Some of these topics have been disected and analysed 3 or 4 times before over the months/years and sound conclusions reached based upon solid evidence, yet it seems that some like to have "forgotten" the solid fact based conclusions reached.
An easy tool for disruption and breaking the flow innit?
I have noticed a tendency for members to post opinion as fact. In my opinion this is an opinion;
Post #245 http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=8465.240
The mere fact that the SC referred to the McCanns not having demonstrated their innocence is evidence that the scales were not balanced
My first question is did the SC actually say in their 75 page judgement that the McCanns had not demonstrated their innocence? I don't know if they did or not without a cite. More importantly, if those words to appear, why were they included. They may be evidence that the scales were not balanced or they may not. It's not possible to assess the assertion and to reply to it without seeing this 'evidence' and it's context.
-
Kiizzy you are confusing it with their HOME garden. It was their own garden for the period that they had booked and paid to stay there; their own holiday garden
It was not on a main road; it was on the corner of two minor roads with very little traffick.
They were just over 70 metres walking distance ... and that would take a matter of seconds rather than minutes
In their beds, they couldn't see them or hear them cry, that is true. However, many parents in their own homes cannot see or hear their children as they sleep either (Mansion type homes) with the living quarters a good distance from the bedrooms.
Also the method they used was superior to the well accepted Butlins method, where someone rode around on a bicylce approx every half hour and put an ear to the door/window. The Mccanns went into the apartment and checked that way.
Do please remember that after Matts listening check at the window, Gerry felt unable to accept that and personally went immediately afterwards to visually check the children. That is a sign of a caring parent.
They were NOT at the Tapas Bar, they were eating their meal at the Tapas RESTAURANT, which is a seperate building
May I suggest that you read back a bit before making sweeping statements which were ALL wrong, either partially or completely
The Tapas complex was for the use of all Ocean Club clients, just as the Millenium complex was.
-
Kiizzy you are confusing it with their HOME garden. It was their own garden for the period that they had booked and paid to stay there; their own holiday garden
It was not on a main road; it was on the corner of two minor roads with very little traffick.
They were just over 70 metres walking distance ... and that would take a matter of seconds rather than minutes
In their beds, they couldn't see them or hear them cry, that is true. However, many parents in their own homes cannot see or hear their children as they sleep either (Mansion type homes) with the living quarters a good distance from the bedrooms.
Also the method they used was superior to the well accepted Butlins method, where someone rode around on a bicylce approx every half hour and put an ear to the door/window. The Mccanns went into the apartment and checked that way.
Do please remember that after Matts listening check at the window, Gerry felt unable to accept that and personally went immediately afterwards to visually check the children. That is a sign of a caring parent.
They were NOT at the Tapas Bar, they were eating their meal at the Tapas RESTAURANT, which is a seperate building
May I suggest that you read back a bit before making sweeping statements which were ALL wrong, either partially or completely
O M G sadie it wasnt there home/garden was it.
Your own home ,front door locked back door leading to garden.
not half the street using it.
They were in a bar, eating drinking.
Butlins was perhaps unsafe, just the same as them leaving three children alone. [on holiday]
They fight for there rights, where as maddie didn't have a choice
-
I have noticed a tendency for members to post opinion as fact. In my opinion this is an opinion;
Post #245 http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=8465.240
The mere fact that the SC referred to the McCanns not having demonstrated their innocence is evidence that the scales were not balanced
My first question is did the SC actually say in their 75 page judgement that the McCanns had not demonstrated their innocence? I don't know if they did or not without a cite. More importantly, if those words to appear, why were they included. They may be evidence that the scales were not balanced or they may not. It's not possible to assess the assertion and to reply to it without seeing this 'evidence' and it's context.
This is what was said.
Page 70.
And let not be said, too, that the appellants were cleared by the order of filing the criminal proceedings.
In fact, that dispatch was not proclaimed by virtue of the Public Ministry having gained the conviction that the appellants had not committed any crime (cf. art. 277° of the CPP).
The filing, in this case, was decided because it was not possible for Public Ministry to obtain sufficient evidence of the practice of crimes by the appellants (cf. the cited art. 277°-2)
There is, therefore, a remarkable difference, and not merely a semantic one, between the legally admissible grounds of the filing order.
Thus, it does not appear acceptable to consider that the alluded dispatch, based on the insufficiency of evidence, should be treated as evidence of innocence.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/Supreme_Court_31_01_2017.htm
-
This is what was said.
Page 70.http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/Supreme_Court_31_01_2017.htm
Thank you barrier. If that is what the poster was referring to then I have this to say.
The SC judges didn't, then, say that the McCanns had 'not demonstrated their innocence'. They said that they couldn't use the filing dispatch as evidence of their innocence. In my opinion that is an important difference.
What the judges said is also not ' evidence that the scales were not balanced'. It is evidence that the SC judges rejected Duarte's claim that the McCanns were cleared by the filing dispatch.
The reason they mentioned the subject at all was because the McCanns lawyer used it in her arguments. They therefore had to reply.
That is my opinion.
-
I have noticed a tendency for members to post opinion as fact. In my opinion this is an opinion;
Post #245 http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=8465.240
The mere fact that the SC referred to the McCanns not having demonstrated their innocence is evidence that the scales were not balanced
My first question is did the SC actually say in their 75 page judgement that the McCanns had not demonstrated their innocence? I don't know if they did or not without a cite. More importantly, if those words to appear, why were they included. They may be evidence that the scales were not balanced or they may not. It's not possible to assess the assertion and to reply to it without seeing this 'evidence' and it's context.
From the SC judgement Jan 2017
Page 69
It must be reminded that, in the present case, the issue isn't the appellants' penal liability, in other words their innocence or their guilt concerning the facts leading to the disappearance of her daughter doesn't have to be appreciated here.
What is in discussion here is merely the civil liability of the respondents, on the grounds that they have expressed and disclosed the above-mentioned thesis/opinion on the disappearance in question.
It follows that the outcome of the present case is not such as to call into question the extra-procedural dimension of the presumption of innocence.
This means that, even if the action does not proceed, it will not imply, even in the eyes of the community. any consideration of the appellants' liability, because such outcome will never will be able to be equated to an observation of respective culpability (cf. on this topic the judgements Del Latte vs Holland (n°44760/98) of 9/11/2004 and Cheena vs Belgium of 9/5/2016).
In addition, we are faced with a decision of filing by the Public Ministry which is subject to modification through various ways.
Thus, in addition to the recourse to the jurisdictional way, by opening the inquiry (see note p.21) (art. 287° of the CPP) and the complaint to the hierarchical superior (art. 278° of the CPP), the investigation can be reopened if new elements of evidence arise invalidating the grounds called upon by the Public Ministry in the filing dispatch (art. 279° of the CPP).
This is indeed even mentioned in the Note to the Social Communication released by the Attorney General's office on 21/7/2008 and announcing that the filing of the investigation had been decided. It was reported that it could be reopened on the initiative of the Public Ministry or at the request of any interested party if new elements of evidence arise triggering serious, pertinent and consequential proceedings (n°14 of the proven facts).
In this way, as the aforementioned filing order is not a judicial decision stricto senso, nor does it assume a definitive form, less would it be justified invoking the principle of the presumption of innocence to restrain freedom of expression.
And the safeguarding of the authority of the judicial power (cf. article 10°-2 of the European Convention on Human Rights) is not alluded to, since is definitely outdated the traditional idea that criticism against the judicial power must be proscribed as it contributes to the undermining of its dignity, authority and credibility in the long term. The best guarantee of dignity of all State institutions in the long run consists in its permanent opening to public criticism.
Page 70
...(cf. Jónatas Machado, Freedom of Expression - Constitutional Dimensions, op. cit. pp. 566-7)
And let not be said, too, that the appellants were cleared by the order of filing the criminal proceedings.
In fact, that dispatch was not proclaimed by virtue of the Public Ministry having gained the conviction that the appellants had not committed any crime (cf. art. 277° of the CPP).
The filing, in this case, was decided because it was not possible for Public Ministry to obtain sufficient evidence of the practice of crimes by the appellants (cf. the cited art. 277°-2)
There is, therefore, a remarkable difference, and not merely a semantic one, between the legally admissible grounds of the filing order.
Thus, it does not appear acceptable to consider that the alluded dispatch, based on the insufficiency of evidence, should be treated as evidence of innocence.
We consider, therefore, that the invocation of breach of the principle of presumption of innocence should not be upheld. That principle does not fall under the decision about the question that has to be resolved.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
IMO the SC contradicts its own reasoning for not breaching the principle of presumption of innocence & the role it played in Amaral's rights.
-
The Tapas complex was for the use of all Ocean Club clients, just as the Millenium complex was.
Yes, and it was adjacent to their apartment and was like a back garden . A big one with expensive things in it admittedly, but believe me some people have big gardens fitted out with a tennis Court and swimming pool + all the other things.
-
Yes, and it was adjacent to their apartment and was like a back garden . A big one with expensive things in it admittedly, but believe me some people have big gardens fitted out with a tennis Court and swimming pool + all the other things.
The Millenium complex had most of the same facilities. It also had accommodation inside it's boundaries, unlike the Tapas complex. It still wasn't, in my opinion, a garden in any sense of the word. It was a complex containing facilities for all the guests, not just those staying within the complex.
-
Yes, and it was adjacent to their apartment and was like a back garden . A big one with expensive things in it admittedly, but believe me some people have big gardens fitted out with a tennis Court and swimming pool + all the other things.
What ever you say, it was not a garden it was a complex. [in a foreign country]
-
What ever you say, it was not a garden it was a complex. [in a foreign country]
Indeed, hardly a garden when the only source of access was through a reception area off a public road some 50 metres or more away from the apartment. More like a public park area.
-
From the SC judgement Jan 2017
Page 69
It must be reminded that, in the present case, the issue isn't the appellants' penal liability, in other words their innocence or their guilt concerning the facts leading to the disappearance of her daughter doesn't have to be appreciated here.
What is in discussion here is merely the civil liability of the respondents, on the grounds that they have expressed and disclosed the above-mentioned thesis/opinion on the disappearance in question.
It follows that the outcome of the present case is not such as to call into question the extra-procedural dimension of the presumption of innocence.
This means that, even if the action does not proceed, it will not imply, even in the eyes of the community. any consideration of the appellants' liability, because such outcome will never will be able to be equated to an observation of respective culpability (cf. on this topic the judgements Del Latte vs Holland (n°44760/98) of 9/11/2004 and Cheena vs Belgium of 9/5/2016).
In addition, we are faced with a decision of filing by the Public Ministry which is subject to modification through various ways.
Thus, in addition to the recourse to the jurisdictional way, by opening the inquiry (see note p.21) (art. 287° of the CPP) and the complaint to the hierarchical superior (art. 278° of the CPP), the investigation can be reopened if new elements of evidence arise invalidating the grounds called upon by the Public Ministry in the filing dispatch (art. 279° of the CPP).
This is indeed even mentioned in the Note to the Social Communication released by the Attorney General's office on 21/7/2008 and announcing that the filing of the investigation had been decided. It was reported that it could be reopened on the initiative of the Public Ministry or at the request of any interested party if new elements of evidence arise triggering serious, pertinent and consequential proceedings (n°14 of the proven facts).
In this way, as the aforementioned filing order is not a judicial decision stricto senso, nor does it assume a definitive form, less would it be justified invoking the principle of the presumption of innocence to restrain freedom of expression.
And the safeguarding of the authority of the judicial power (cf. article 10°-2 of the European Convention on Human Rights) is not alluded to, since is definitely outdated the traditional idea that criticism against the judicial power must be proscribed as it contributes to the undermining of its dignity, authority and credibility in the long term. The best guarantee of dignity of all State institutions in the long run consists in its permanent opening to public criticism.
Page 70
...(cf. Jónatas Machado, Freedom of Expression - Constitutional Dimensions, op. cit. pp. 566-7)
And let not be said, too, that the appellants were cleared by the order of filing the criminal proceedings.
In fact, that dispatch was not proclaimed by virtue of the Public Ministry having gained the conviction that the appellants had not committed any crime (cf. art. 277° of the CPP).
The filing, in this case, was decided because it was not possible for Public Ministry to obtain sufficient evidence of the practice of crimes by the appellants (cf. the cited art. 277°-2)
There is, therefore, a remarkable difference, and not merely a semantic one, between the legally admissible grounds of the filing order.
Thus, it does not appear acceptable to consider that the alluded dispatch, based on the insufficiency of evidence, should be treated as evidence of innocence.
We consider, therefore, that the invocation of breach of the principle of presumption of innocence should not be upheld. That principle does not fall under the decision about the question that has to be resolved.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
IMO the SC contradicts its own reasoning for not breaching the principle of presumption of innocence & the role it played in Amaral's rights.
Thank you Misty. I can now see that the judges report did not contain the words you used;
"the SC referred to the McCanns not having demonstrated their innocence"
It seems that was your opinion of what they said, which is why cites are important.
The judges actually said;
Page 70
And let not be said, too, that the appellants were cleared by the order of filing the criminal proceedings.
They were referring to a specific claim by Duarte that the filing order cleared the McCanns;
Page 40
and already cleared before through the filing dispatch of a criminal investigation
Duarte made a claim and the judges examined it and rejected it. Any comments they made have to be understood in that context and no other.
The presumption of innocence, which was first raised in the first trial, was said to have been violated by Amaral. Not because of what he wrote and said, because;
Now the thesis that the minor died accidentally in the apartment and that this fact was hidden by her parents, who spread and fed, in order to deceive, an hypothesis of abduction, is not new, there's nothing new neither in the book, in the interview or in the documentary.
This theory of the facts comes from the own investigation, it is shaped in the chief inspector Tavares de Almeida's report (No. 9), it was an avenue pursued by the investigation (paragraphs 10 and 11), it determined the constitution of the claimants Gerald and Kate McCann as arguidos and was put within the reach of the media, and soon of the general public through a copy of the inquest (paragraphs 65 and 66) .
Page 34 http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=6307.0
In other words, Amaral repeated what had already been said, he said nothing new. So the judge turned to the restrictions which, she argued, stopped Amaral from saying what was already known.
Putting it as clearly as I can she said he wasn't allowed full freedom of speech because he was a retired PJ Inspector. Judges, courts and officials must not use their knowledge of cases to accuse people because that could interfere with their right to a fair trial in any future proceedings by taking away the right to the presumption of innocence. .
The Appeal and Supreme Court judges all ruled that Amaral's freedom of speech was not restricted. Therefore he didn't break the rules or interfere with the right of the McCanns to the presumption of innocence.
It was the McCanns lawyer who subsequently tried to argue that the presumption of innocence was related to her client's right to a good name, etc. The judges also rejected that claim because the McCanns hadn't been deprived of that right at any stage of the investigation, and Amaral had enjoyed full freedom of speech because he had not used privileged information; it was already in the public domain before he said anything.
The arguments are spread over eight years and are complex. I hope I've managed to clarify why and in what context certain things were discussed.
-
Thank you Misty. I can now see that the judges report did not contain the words you used;
"the SC referred to the McCanns not having demonstrated their innocence"
It seems that was your opinion of what they said, which is why cites are important.
The judges actually said;
Page 70
And let not be said, too, that the appellants were cleared by the order of filing the criminal proceedings.
They were referring to a specific claim by Duarte that the filing order cleared the McCanns;
Page 40
and already cleared before through the filing dispatch of a criminal investigation
Duarte made a claim and the judges examined it and rejected it. Any comments they made have to be understood in that context and no other.
The presumption of innocence, which was first raised in the first trial, was said to have been violated by Amaral. Not because of what he wrote and said, because;
Now the thesis that the minor died accidentally in the apartment and that this fact was hidden by her parents, who spread and fed, in order to deceive, an hypothesis of abduction, is not new, there's nothing new neither in the book, in the interview or in the documentary.
This theory of the facts comes from the own investigation, it is shaped in the chief inspector Tavares de Almeida's report (No. 9), it was an avenue pursued by the investigation (paragraphs 10 and 11), it determined the constitution of the claimants Gerald and Kate McCann as arguidos and was put within the reach of the media, and soon of the general public through a copy of the inquest (paragraphs 65 and 66) .
Page 34 http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=6307.0
In other words, Amaral repeated what had already been said, he said nothing new. So the judge turned to the restrictions which, she argued, stopped Amaral from saying what was already known.
Putting it as clearly as I can she said he wasn't allowed full freedom of speech because he was a retired PJ Inspector. Judges, courts and officials must not use their knowledge of cases to accuse people because that could interfere with their right to a fair trial in any future proceedings by taking away the right to the presumption of innocence. .
The Appeal and Supreme Court judges all ruled that Amaral's freedom of speech was not restricted. Therefore he didn't break the rules or interfere with the right of the McCanns to the presumption of innocence.
It was the McCanns lawyer who subsequently tried to argue that the presumption of innocence was related to her client's right to a good name, etc. The judges also rejected that claim because the McCanns hadn't been deprived of that right at any stage of the investigation, and Amaral had enjoyed full freedom of speech because he had not used privileged information; it was already in the public domain before he said anything.
The arguments are spread over eight years and are complex. I hope I've managed to clarify why and in what context certain things were discussed.
We will have to agree to disagree. At every point before the McCanns were officially declared arguidos, Amaral wrote about them as though they were guilty & each point was laboured. Very rarely were they afforded the privilege of being portrayed as the innocent victims of a possible crime rather than the perpetrators and that lack of privilege was extended by the SC who agreed that right to express the unproven thesis exceeded the right to be seen as innocent citizens in the eyes of those who had viewed the book/documentary.
-
We will have to agree to disagree. At every point before the McCanns were officially declared arguidos, Amaral wrote about them as though they were guilty & each point was laboured. Very rarely were they afforded the privilege of being portrayed as the innocent victims of a possible crime rather than the perpetrators and that lack of privilege was extended by the SC who agreed that right to express the unproven thesis exceeded the right to be seen as innocent citizens in the eyes of those who had viewed the book/documentary.
I agree, we will never agree. The trouble is that no matter how upset the McCanns felt by what he said they had to prove libel. That was always going to be difficult because he said nothing that hadn't been said before, as the first judge acknowledged.
She found him in breach of his duty of reserve and of violating the McCanns right to the presumption of innocence. The higher courts rejected her findings and in my opinion the McCann's lawyers could find nothing to replace them. I think any contradictions and confusions arose from Duarte's efforts as she used wilder and wilder arguments to try to win her case. That's how I see it anyway.
-
O M G sadie it wasnt there home/garden was it.
Your own home ,front door locked back door leading to garden.
not half the street using it.
They were in a bar, eating drinking.
Butlins was perhaps unsafe, just the same as them leaving three children alone. [on holiday]
They fight for there rights, where as maddie didn't have a choice
OMG Kizzy.
I have never siad it was their home back garden, but I have said that it was LIKE their home back garden. ... And a block of flats with its own garden, perhaps with childrens play area etc in the UK. Posh private iones with tennis Courts and swimming pool maybe ... would you consider that like their own back garden? ... Do get your facts right pls.
THey were NOT in the BAR, they were in a different building, it was the RESTAURANT. ... Do get your facts right pls.
Maybe Butlins was unsafe cos the checkers never went in to physically check the children. The Mccanns went in and physically checked them ... Matt too, the second time he checked, but unfortunately he didn't look around the corner at Madeleines bed. ... BTW, ave you ever complained to Butlins about their checking system? Are you reserving all the complaints for the Mccanns. ... Why?
THe Mccanns fight for Madeleine all the time and clearing their names of smears has to be part of it. If all the propaganda and lies put out by people who are ignorant of the facts were allowed to stand unchallenged, then their names would be so trashed that no-one would support them in their labour of love, searching for their Madeleine
... Do you think that you could be ignorant of the facts perchance?
-
This might not affect their human rights per se, but I shall never forget how The Mccanns were told dates for certain processes in the trial and after arranging time off work, childcare, companions, flights, hotels, Lawyers etc and psyching themselves up, at the very last minute they were told that the sitting that day had been cancelled.
This happened several times with the weakest of reasons given. On at least one occasion they actually arrived at Court to be turned away IIRC
This was a massively destructive thing for them and undoubtedly violated their Human Rights. It seemed a deliberate ploy IMO. I doubt that the ECHR will take this on board but IMO they should
It's a trial, these things don't run on strict timelines.
-
The presumption of innocence is as valid in a civil trial as in a criminal trial. The mere fact that the SC referred to the McCanns not having demonstrated their innocence is evidence that the scales were not balanced, especially in light of the fact that no crime had been proven to have occurred.
As they were not the defendants in a criminal or civil trial their innocence or guilt was not under consideration.
-
Well said Rob
IMO the constant calls for cites when it has all been thoroughly discussed before, with conclusions reached based upon evidence, is just a method of disrupting and wasting the original posters time. Also diverting away from what that poster said.
Some of these topics have been disected and analysed 3 or 4 times before over the months/years and sound conclusions reached based upon solid evidence, yet it seems that some like to have "forgotten" the solid fact based conclusions reached.
An easy tool for disruption and breaking the flow innit?
Probably due to some posters proposing fantasitical scenarios and backing them up with "I seem to recall" or "If I remember correctly" this is not acceptable.
-
As they were not the defendants in a criminal or civil trial their innocence or guilt was not under consideration.
The right not to have their reputations tarnished by opinionated accusations of guilt was the core matter of the trial, in addition to the damaging effect those accusations had on the continued search for Madeleine. IMO.
-
The right not to have their reputations tarnished by opinionated accusations of guilt was the core matter of the trial, in addition to the damaging effect those accusations had on the continued search for Madeleine. IMO.
Amaral was declared to be innocent of that charge, therefore their reputation was not tarnished by him.
-
Amaral was declared to be innocent of that charge, therefore their reputation was not tarnished by him.
And hence the need to take it to the ECHR.
-
Its not clear to me what the basis of their case is, other that it has absolutely nothing to do with Amaral.
-
Its not clear to me what the basis of their case is, other that it has absolutely nothing to do with Amaral.
If I understand it correctly the McCanns question the Supreme Court decision. They are not questioning Amaral's actions at this point in time.
-
If I understand it correctly the McCanns question the Supreme Court decision. They are not questioning Amaral's actions at this point in time.
Or at any future time as that is all finished.
-
Or at any future time as that is all finished.
I'm not so sure about that. Could the ECHR order a retrial?
-
No. They are unable to interfere with the decisions of nation courts, which stand whatever the ECHR decides.
-
The right not to have their reputations tarnished by opinionated accusations of guilt was the core matter of the trial, in addition to the damaging effect those accusations had on the continued search for Madeleine. IMO.
The McCanns had publicised their theory far and wide;
Page 63
Thus they opened the way for any person wishing equally to express an opinion on the case, contradicting their thesis.......
Page 67
Of all those circumstances does not result, in our view, that underlying the book, the documentary and the interview, exists an defamatory intention against the appellants, i.e an animus injuriandi, but rather an animus informandi and an animus defendendi. Note*
The opinion expressed by the respondent is sufficiently detailed in an intelligible and logical assessment of the facts and elements of evidence gathered in the investigation. Therefore the existence of a mere attack ad hominem to the persons of the appellants is not to be prefigured.
Note* animus injuriandi (intention to offend) vs animus informandi (intention to inform) and animus defendendi (intention to defend).
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=7937.15
-
No. They are unable to interfere with the decisions of nation courts, which stand whatever the ECHR decides.
Well maybe Portugal will do it instead.
-
Well maybe Portugal will do it instead.
No, they can't do that either. The Supreme Court is supreme.
The McCanns went down that route with their complaint about the Court, which was rapidly thrown out .
They have run out of legal options in Portugal and are now in the Last Chance Saloon of the ECHR
-
And hence the need to take it to the ECHR.
No need at all for the E.C.H.R.
It is in my opinion a diversionary tactic, and it will fail with even more humiliation, as a result.
Also, of course, they don't want to pay up what they owe.
Trouble being, what they owe is nothing to do with the E.C.H.R.
-
Anyone care to comment on this paragraph found on p55 of the SC judgement?
Thereby followed the injunctions of the Recommendation R (2000) of January 19 2000 from the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe, which constitutes a soft law instrument that called on States to provide for the possibility of reopening internal proceedings when the re-examination is the necessary means to repair the entitlement affected in the cases where violation is stated by the ECHR
-
Anyone care to comment on this paragraph found on p55 of the SC judgement?
Thereby followed the injunctions of the Recommendation R (2000) of January 19 2000 from the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe, which constitutes a soft law instrument that called on States to provide for the possibility of reopening internal proceedings when the re-examination is the necessary means to repair the entitlement affected in the cases where violation is stated by the ECHR
Have you forgotten that the Supreme Court Judgement was made in regard to a case in the E.C.H.R. ?
-
Have you forgotten that the Supreme Court Judgement was made in regard to a case in the E.C.H.R. ?
If you read the full judgement you will also see listed ECHR cases which favoured the right to a good reputation.
Anything to add to the bit about re-opening a case?
-
If this was proposed in 2000, States don't seem to be in any hurry to address the issue.
-
Anyone care to comment on this paragraph found on p55 of the SC judgement?
Thereby followed the injunctions of the Recommendation R (2000) of January 19 2000 from the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe, which constitutes a soft law instrument that called on States to provide for the possibility of reopening internal proceedings when the re-examination is the necessary means to repair the entitlement affected in the cases where violation is stated by the ECHR
You missed...
I. Invites, in the light of these considerations the Contracting Parties to ensure that there exist at national level adequate possibilities to achieve, as far as possible, restitutio in integrum;
II. Encourages the Contracting Parties, in particular, to examine their national legal systems with a view to ensuring that there exist adequate possibilities of re-examination of the case, including reopening of proceedings, in instances where the Court has found a violation of the Convention, especially where:
(i) the injured party continues to suffer very serious negative consequences because of the outcome of the domestic decision at issue, which are not adequately remedied by the just satisfaction and cannot be rectified except by re-examination or reopening, and
(ii) the judgment of the Court leads to the conclusion that
(a) the impugned domestic decision is on the merits contrary to the Convention, or
(b) the violation found is based on procedural errors or shortcomings of such gravity that a serious doubt is cast on the outcome of the domestic proceedings complained of.
-
If this was proposed in 2000, States don't seem to be in any hurry to address the issue.
That's why I've raised it as the SC wouldn't have included that if it wasn't relevant. Is it now in the small print somewhere? I cannot see member states wanting to foot enormous bills every time their highest court gets something wrong.
-
What ever you say, it was not a garden it was a complex. [in a foreign country]
Oh they do have gardens in foreign countries 8(>((
Yep, it was a sort of complex ... but that was contained in what felt like a back garden. Like a very rich persons own back garden. And of course it was adjoining the backs of the apartments, where a back garden usually is.
Despite all it contained, it had a very cozy feel to it and seemed quite small. Maybe this was because the tennis courts were hidden around the back of the Tapas Bar and completely out of sight as you entered the garden.
I guess that architect/owner Robin Crosland designed it ... and he made a damned good job of it. Talk about getting a quart out of a pint pot !!
Do try and go there and have a look Kizzy
-
Indeed, hardly a garden when the only source of access was through a reception area off a public road some 50 metres or more away from the apartment. More like a public park area.
Nothing like a public park; it was for the use of guests, although staff used it too at times. The reception area was to keep the public out. Very compact and felt very cozy surprisingly
Go and have a look yourself. See what you think then.
-
Page 55
… On the national instances' side there is a clear tendency to secondarily favour freedom of expression and to overestimate the right to honour.
This has caused Portugal to be condemned by the ECHR for violation of art. 10° of the European Convention on Human Rights (cf. the cases Lopes Gomes da Silva vs Portugal (2000), Urbino Rodrigues vs Portugal (2005), Roseiro Bento vs Portugal (2005). Almeida Azevedo vs Portugal (2007), Colaço Mestre vs Portugal (2007), Leonel Azevedo vs Portugal (2008), Medipress Sociedade Jornalistica. Lda. Vs Portugal (2016) and Tavares de Almeida Fernandes and Almeida Fernandes vs Portugal (2017)).
We observe, in this respect, that in the cases in which the Portuguese State would be condemned by the ECHR for violation of Convention norms, a request of review can be lodged to the Court that issued the decision to re-examine (cf. Art. 449°-1g of the CPP introduced by Law n° 48/ 2007, of 29/8, and art. 771°-f of the CPC, introduced by D.L n°303/2007 of 24/8 - art. 696°-f of the NCPC-)
-
We will have to agree to disagree. At every point before the McCanns were officially declared arguidos, Amaral wrote about them as though they were guilty & each point was laboured. Very rarely were they afforded the privilege of being portrayed as the innocent victims of a possible crime rather than the perpetrators and that lack of privilege was extended by the SC who agreed that right to express the unproven thesis exceeded the right to be seen as innocent citizens in the eyes of those who had viewed the book/documentary.
And that is totally disgusting in what purports to be a democracy
-
Page 55
… On the national instances' side there is a clear tendency to secondarily favour freedom of expression and to overestimate the right to honour.
This has caused Portugal to be condemned by the ECHR for violation of art. 10° of the European Convention on Human Rights (cf. the cases Lopes Gomes da Silva vs Portugal (2000), Urbino Rodrigues vs Portugal (2005), Roseiro Bento vs Portugal (2005). Almeida Azevedo vs Portugal (2007), Colaço Mestre vs Portugal (2007), Leonel Azevedo vs Portugal (2008), Medipress Sociedade Jornalistica. Lda. Vs Portugal (2016) and Tavares de Almeida Fernandes and Almeida Fernandes vs Portugal (2017)).
We observe, in this respect, that in the cases in which the Portuguese State would be condemned by the ECHR for violation of Convention norms, a request of review can be lodged to the Court that issued the decision to re-examine (cf. Art. 449°-1g of the CPP introduced by Law n° 48/ 2007, of 29/8, and art. 771°-f of the CPC, introduced by D.L n°303/2007 of 24/8 - art. 696°-f of the NCPC-)
The human rights of the McCann's weren't violated. That is a pure myth, propagated by them and by some of those who support them.
They weren't on trial.
Meanwhile Misty, what about Madeleine's human rights to be taken care of, by her parents. THEY FAILED.
-
It's a trial, these things don't run on strict timelines.
Well why couldn't they have informed The Mccanns before they left home?
IMO it was deliberate; it happened too often with no warning.
-
Myth:— The national courts are bound by the ECHR in Strasbourg.
Fact:— Quite the opposite. The national courts are NOT required to blindly FOLLOW the judgments of the ECHR. They must only “take account” of them. National courts can (and do) depart from ECHR caselaw in order to operate its own national laws and legal traditions. Where the national courts and the ECHR disagree or diverge, it is the ECHR that has to revisit its conclusions. It is worth remembering that the European Convention rights has to be interpreted for operation in the national jurisdictions (because it doesn’t have one-size-fits-all operability across different national jurisdictions).
-
Myth:— The national courts are bound by the ECHR in Strasbourg.
Fact:— Quite the opposite. The national courts are NOT required to blindly FOLLOW the judgments of the ECHR. They must only “take account” of them. National courts can (and do) depart from ECHR caselaw in order to operate its own national laws and legal traditions. Where the national courts and the ECHR disagree or diverge, it is the ECHR that has to revisit its conclusions. It is worth remembering that the European Convention rights has to be interpreted for operation in the national jurisdictions (because it doesn’t have one-size-fits-all operability across different national jurisdictions).
Thanks for that reminder 8((()*/ Alice.
-
Page 55
… On the national instances' side there is a clear tendency to secondarily favour freedom of expression and to overestimate the right to honour.
This has caused Portugal to be condemned by the ECHR for violation of art. 10° of the European Convention on Human Rights (cf. the cases Lopes Gomes da Silva vs Portugal (2000), Urbino Rodrigues vs Portugal (2005), Roseiro Bento vs Portugal (2005). Almeida Azevedo vs Portugal (2007), Colaço Mestre vs Portugal (2007), Leonel Azevedo vs Portugal (2008), Medipress Sociedade Jornalistica. Lda. Vs Portugal (2016) and Tavares de Almeida Fernandes and Almeida Fernandes vs Portugal (2017)).
We observe, in this respect, that in the cases in which the Portuguese State would be condemned by the ECHR for violation of Convention norms, a request of review can be lodged to the Court that issued the decision to re-examine (cf. Art. 449°-1g of the CPP introduced by Law n° 48/ 2007, of 29/8, and art. 771°-f of the CPC, introduced by D.L n°303/2007 of 24/8 - art. 696°-f of the NCPC-)
The McCanns duly requested a review and it was denied.
-
Probably due to some posters proposing fantasitical scenarios and backing them up with "I seem to recall" or "If I remember correctly" this is not acceptable.
I have made it quite plain on here that as an octogenarian who has not enjoyed the best of health (understatement here) over the past two years, I will not be spending long hours searching for cites. I have been suckered into doing that too many times, destroying the continuity of posts. That spoiling of continuity, is of course, the reason why most of the requests for cites were given.
The points I am making, backed up by other facts, have almost always been well discussed on here sometimes 3 or 4 times ... and the person requesting the cites has been an integral part of the discussions BUT simply wants to disrupt my arguments. Nothing more than that. They know what I am saying is correct BUT disruption is the name of the game with some.
If John wants to get rid of me, then that is OK with me, BUT I will only search for cites when there is reason to do so ... and that is NOT when the person demanding it KNOWS what I am saying is correct
I have a good memory of events and I always put IIRC and sometimes on more important posts ask people to correct me if i am wrong
Unlike a few on here I am not a liar, but like everyone, I can make mistakes occasionally. I appreciate it if someone puts me right if I have made a mistake.
-
And hence the need to take it to the ECHR.
Spot on, Rob ... and misty too! 8((()*/ 8@??)(
-
I have made it quite plain on here that as an octogenarian who has not enjoyed the best of health (understatement here) over the past two years, I will not be spending long hours searching for cites. I have been suckered into doing that too many times, destroying the continuity of posts. That spoiling of continuity, is of course, the reason why most of the requests for cites were given.
The points I am making, backed up by other facts, have almost always been well discussed on here sometimes 3 or 4 times ... and the person requesting the cites has been an integral part of the discussions BUT simply wants to disrupt my arguments. Nothing more than that. They know what I am saying is correct BUT disruption is the name of the game with some.
If John wants to get rid of me, then that is OK with me, BUT I will only search for cites when there is reason to do so ... and that is NOT when the person demanding it KNOWS what I am saying is correct
I have a good memory of events and I always put IIRC and sometimes on more important posts ask people to correct me if i am wrong
Unlike a few on here I am not a liar, but like everyone, I can make mistakes occasionally. I appreciate it if someone puts me right if I have made a mistake.
Contrary to your belief, other posters do not necessarily know your claims are correct and it is up to you to not make mistakes by backing up your statements with cites.
-
Page 55
… On the national instances' side there is a clear tendency to secondarily favour freedom of expression and to overestimate the right to honour.
This has caused Portugal to be condemned by the ECHR for violation of art. 10° of the European Convention on Human Rights (cf. the cases Lopes Gomes da Silva vs Portugal (2000), Urbino Rodrigues vs Portugal (2005), Roseiro Bento vs Portugal (2005). Almeida Azevedo vs Portugal (2007), Colaço Mestre vs Portugal (2007), Leonel Azevedo vs Portugal (2008), Medipress Sociedade Jornalistica. Lda. Vs Portugal (2016) and Tavares de Almeida Fernandes and Almeida Fernandes vs Portugal (2017)).
We observe, in this respect, that in the cases in which the Portuguese State would be condemned by the ECHR for violation of Convention norms, a request of review can be lodged to the Court that issued the decision to re-examine (cf. Art. 449°-1g of the CPP introduced by Law n° 48/ 2007, of 29/8, and art. 771°-f of the CPC, introduced by D.L n°303/2007 of 24/8 - art. 696°-f of the NCPC-)
You do actually realise what you have posted? Portugal has been criticised by the ECHR for favouring The Right to a Good Name over Freedom of Expression.
-
You are playing a blinder Misty. 8@??)( Well done.
I will keep out of the discussion now so as to not disrupt your very well researched posts.
sadie x
-
Spectacular own goal = playing a blinder.
Just plain blind would be more apt.
-
You are playing a blinder Misty. 8@??)( Well done.
I will keep out of the discussion now so as to not disrupt your very well researched posts.
sadie x
Misty, like you and a few others, are going to be very disappointed.
The Mccann's human rights were never violated by the Portguese. Implying they are or were, is an insult to those people whose human rights have been violated around the world.
-
I have made it quite plain on here that as an octogenarian who has not enjoyed the best of health (understatement here) over the past two years, I will not be spending long hours searching for cites. I have been suckered into doing that too many times, destroying the continuity of posts. That spoiling of continuity, is of course, the reason why most of the requests for cites were given.
The points I am making, backed up by other facts, have almost always been well discussed on here sometimes 3 or 4 times ... and the person requesting the cites has been an integral part of the discussions BUT simply wants to disrupt my arguments. Nothing more than that. They know what I am saying is correct BUT disruption is the name of the game with some.
If John wants to get rid of me, then that is OK with me, BUT I will only search for cites when there is reason to do so ... and that is NOT when the person demanding it KNOWS what I am saying is correct
I have a good memory of events and I always put IIRC and sometimes on more important posts ask people to correct me if i am wrong
Unlike a few on here I am not a liar, but like everyone, I can make mistakes occasionally. I appreciate it if someone puts me right if I have made a mistake.
I can appreciate your difficulties Sadie; I have a cataract which hinders me. I have been criticised for requesting cites but unless they are provided there is no way to check whether the poster is posting a fact, their own interpretation of a fact or just their opinion. Stating opinion as if it were a fact is against forum rules, but it happens. Without cites discussions then become arguments about opinions.
A discussion based on opinion is very easy; it can be as simple as 'Yes it is!' 'No it isn't!'. That isn't a discussion in my opinion, it's a school yard argument. Clarity, not disruption is my aim.
-
And that is totally disgusting in what purports to be a democracy
If, of course, it's true.
-
I can appreciate your difficulties Sadie; I have a cataract which hinders me. I have been criticised for requesting cites but unless they are provided there is no way to check whether the poster is posting a fact, their own interpretation of a fact or just their opinion. Stating opinion as if it were a fact is against forum rules, but it happens. Without cites discussions then become arguments about opinions.
A discussion based on opinion is very easy; it can be as simple as 'Yes it is!' 'No it isn't!'. That isn't a discussion in my opinion, it's a school yard argument. Clarity, not disruption is my aim.
Do have the operation, Gunit. My hubby has had both eyes done and is amazed at the improvement. They used to say that you had to wait until they were "ripe", but I have heard that they have changed their minds on that. Operations on the eyes are not a pleasant thought, but he says that it wasn't much at all. Do go for it asap Gunit. An impressive success rate, I believe.
I too have problems with seeing, but mine is blur and flashing lights occasionally + running eyes. Horrible.
I have to rest them often. Some of it is to do with diabetes but much of it is to do with too much computer work on this forum
With the cites business, I will try to find one if it is something that hasn't been discussed thoroughly on here, but if it has and fairly recently then I am not risking my sight on any more searching
-
You do actually realise what you have posted? Portugal has been criticised by the ECHR for favouring The Right to a Good Name over Freedom of Expression.
I posted that section in the context of re-opening a case, not what the judgement was about. There are examples where the ECHR has ruled against freedom of expression.
Chauvy & Ors v France
https://www.article19.org/resources.php/resource/2310/en/case-of-chauvy-and-others-v.-france
A v Norway
http://merlin.obs.coe.int/iris/2009/6/article2.en.html
ETA A v Norway is particularly pertinent in its similarities to the McCann case.
IRIS 2009-6:3/2
European Court of Human Rights
Case of A. v. Norway
Dirk Voorhoof Ghent University (Belgium) & Copenhagen University (Denmark) & Member of the Flemish Regulator for the Media
The European Court in a recent judgment clarified the relation of the freedom of the press (Art. 10) vis à vis the right of privacy (Art. 8) and the presumption of innocence (Art. 6 para. 2) in a case of crime-reporting in the media. The applicant, A, is a Norwegian national with a criminal past. The case concerns A’s complaint about the unfavourable outcome of a defamation suit he brought against the Fœdrelandsvennen newspaper, following its publication of two articles concerning the preliminary investigation into a murder case which implicated him. A had been questioned as a possible witness about the murder of two young women, but was released after 10 hours. The police’s interest in A attracted considerable media attention. Fœdrelandsvennen disclosed details of A’s criminal convictions and stated that he had allegedly been seen by witnesses in the very same area and at the same time as the girls were killed. A television station, TV2, also reported in a news broadcast on the case and presented A as a murderer.
A brought defamation proceedings against the Fœdrelandsvennen newspaper and TV2, as further investigation and proceedings made it clear that he had nothing to do with the murder case. The Norwegian courts found in his favour and awarded him compensation as regards the TV2 report. In respect of the newspaper articles, however, the domestic courts agreed that the publications had been defamatory, in as much as they were capable of giving the ordinary reader the impression that the applicant was regarded as the most probable perpetrator of the murders, yet concluded that, on balance, the newspaper had been right to publish the articles, as it had acted in the interest of the general public, which had the right to be informed of the developments in the investigation and the pursuit of the perpetrators. Relying on Article 6§2 (presumption of innocence) and Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life), A complained in Strasbourg that the domestic courts’ findings - to the extent that the Fœdrelandsvennen newspaper was found to have a right to publish defamatory material about him - had negatively affected his right to be presumed innocent until proven otherwise, as well as his private life.
The Court dismissed A’s allegations under Article 6 para. 2, as it found that Article not applicable to the matters at hand, given in particular that no public authority had charged A with a criminal offence and that the disputed newspaper publications did not amount to an affirmation that he was guilty of the crimes in question. The Court, however, was of the opinion that the articles had been defamatory in nature, as they had given the impression that the applicant had been a prime suspect in the murder case of the two girls. While it is undisputed that the press have the right to deliver information to the public and the public have the right to receive such information, these considerations did not justify the defamatory allegations against A and the consequent harm done to him. Indeed, the applicant had been persecuted by journalists seeking to obtain pictures and interviews from him, this being during a period in his life when he had been undergoing rehabilitation and reintegration into society. As a result of the journalistic reports, he found himself unable to continue his work, had to leave his home and was driven to social exclusion. In the Court's view there was no reasonable relationship of proportionality between the interests relied on by the domestic courts in safeguarding Fædrelandsvennen' freedom of expression and those of the applicant in having his honour, reputation and privacy protected. The Court was therefore not satisfied that the national courts struck a fair balance between the newspaper's freedom of expression under Article 10 and the applicant's right to respect for his private life under Article 8, notwithstanding the wide margin of appreciation available to the national authorities. The Court concluded that the publications in question had gravely damaged A’s reputation and honour and had been especially harmful to his moral and psychological integrity and to his private life, in violation of Article 8.
References
■ Judgment by the European Court of Human Rights (First Section), case of A. v. Norway, Application no. 28070/06 of 9 April 2009
-
Do have the operation, Gunit. My hubby has had both eyes done and is amazed at the improvement. They used to say that you had to wait until they were "ripe", but I have heard that they have changed their minds on that. Operations on the eyes are not a pleasant thought, but he says that it wasn't much at all. Do go for it asap Gunit. An impressive success rate, I believe.
I too have problems with seeing, but mine is blur and flashing lights occasionally + running eyes. Horrible.
I have to rest them often. Some of it is to do with diabetes but much of it is to do with too much computer work on this forum
With the cites business, I will try to find one if it is something that hasn't been discussed thoroughly on here, but if it has and fairly recently then I am not risking my sight on any more searching
I take it you know how to make your screen bigger, if that would halp you?
-
I posted that section in the context of re-opening a case, not what the judgement was about. There are examples where the ECHR has ruled against freedom of expression.
Chauvy & Ors v France
https://www.article19.org/resources.php/resource/2310/en/case-of-chauvy-and-others-v.-france
A v Norway
http://merlin.obs.coe.int/iris/2009/6/article2.en.html
ETA A v Norway is particularly pertinent in its similarities to the McCann case.
IRIS 2009-6:3/2
European Court of Human Rights
Case of A. v. Norway
Dirk Voorhoof Ghent University (Belgium) & Copenhagen University (Denmark) & Member of the Flemish Regulator for the Media
The European Court in a recent judgment clarified the relation of the freedom of the press (Art. 10) vis à vis the right of privacy (Art. 8) and the presumption of innocence (Art. 6 para. 2) in a case of crime-reporting in the media. The applicant, A, is a Norwegian national with a criminal past. The case concerns A’s complaint about the unfavourable outcome of a defamation suit he brought against the Fœdrelandsvennen newspaper, following its publication of two articles concerning the preliminary investigation into a murder case which implicated him. A had been questioned as a possible witness about the murder of two young women, but was released after 10 hours. The police’s interest in A attracted considerable media attention. Fœdrelandsvennen disclosed details of A’s criminal convictions and stated that he had allegedly been seen by witnesses in the very same area and at the same time as the girls were killed. A television station, TV2, also reported in a news broadcast on the case and presented A as a murderer.
A brought defamation proceedings against the Fœdrelandsvennen newspaper and TV2, as further investigation and proceedings made it clear that he had nothing to do with the murder case. The Norwegian courts found in his favour and awarded him compensation as regards the TV2 report. In respect of the newspaper articles, however, the domestic courts agreed that the publications had been defamatory, in as much as they were capable of giving the ordinary reader the impression that the applicant was regarded as the most probable perpetrator of the murders, yet concluded that, on balance, the newspaper had been right to publish the articles, as it had acted in the interest of the general public, which had the right to be informed of the developments in the investigation and the pursuit of the perpetrators. Relying on Article 6§2 (presumption of innocence) and Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life), A complained in Strasbourg that the domestic courts’ findings - to the extent that the Fœdrelandsvennen newspaper was found to have a right to publish defamatory material about him - had negatively affected his right to be presumed innocent until proven otherwise, as well as his private life.
The Court dismissed A’s allegations under Article 6 para. 2, as it found that Article not applicable to the matters at hand, given in particular that no public authority had charged A with a criminal offence and that the disputed newspaper publications did not amount to an affirmation that he was guilty of the crimes in question. The Court, however, was of the opinion that the articles had been defamatory in nature, as they had given the impression that the applicant had been a prime suspect in the murder case of the two girls. While it is undisputed that the press have the right to deliver information to the public and the public have the right to receive such information, these considerations did not justify the defamatory allegations against A and the consequent harm done to him. Indeed, the applicant had been persecuted by journalists seeking to obtain pictures and interviews from him, this being during a period in his life when he had been undergoing rehabilitation and reintegration into society. As a result of the journalistic reports, he found himself unable to continue his work, had to leave his home and was driven to social exclusion. In the Court's view there was no reasonable relationship of proportionality between the interests relied on by the domestic courts in safeguarding Fædrelandsvennen' freedom of expression and those of the applicant in having his honour, reputation and privacy protected. The Court was therefore not satisfied that the national courts struck a fair balance between the newspaper's freedom of expression under Article 10 and the applicant's right to respect for his private life under Article 8, notwithstanding the wide margin of appreciation available to the national authorities. The Court concluded that the publications in question had gravely damaged A’s reputation and honour and had been especially harmful to his moral and psychological integrity and to his private life, in violation of Article 8.
References
■ Judgment by the European Court of Human Rights (First Section), case of A. v. Norway, Application no. 28070/06 of 9 April 2009
There are differences;
"A brought defamation proceedings against the Fœdrelandsvennen newspaper and TV2, as further investigation and proceedings made it clear that he had nothing to do with the murder case."
Amaral may have given the impression that they had committed a crime, but so did the police investigation files. Even when the case was archived the report didn't make it clear that they had nothing to do with the disappearance of their daughter.
"As a result of the journalistic reports, he found himself unable to continue his work, had to leave his home and was driven to social exclusion."
The McCanns were unable to demonstrate any such problems as a result of Amaral's thesis.
-
There are differences;
"A brought defamation proceedings against the Fœdrelandsvennen newspaper and TV2, as further investigation and proceedings made it clear that he had nothing to do with the murder case."
Amaral may have given the impression that they had committed a crime, but so did the police investigation files. Even when the case was archived the report didn't make it clear that they had nothing to do with the disappearance of their daughter.
"As a result of the journalistic reports, he found himself unable to continue his work, had to leave his home and was driven to social exclusion."
The McCanns were unable to demonstrate any such problems as a result of Amaral's thesis.
I feel the test should be easier than that. It should just be a test of "would you want that to happen to you?" Would you want to be accused of contributing to the accidental death of your child, and the subsequent accusation of disposal of the body? Would you want this without any proof that you did these things? It should not depend on how resourceful the family is at getting back to work. I can't imagine that is fair whether you are a homeless drifter or a heart surgeon.
-
I take it you know how to make your screen bigger, if that would halp you?
Thank you. I already have a wide screen and I know how to enlarge the script, but it is a fiddle and i cant do it for emails etc.
I have woken up with sore eyes this morning, hubbies flue like cold coming on I suspect. Anyway, dont worry about me. I shall come in when I feel i can and try not to stay too long. THe computer doesn't do my eyes any good.
-
I feel the test should be easier than that. It should just be a test of "would you want that to happen to you?" Would you want to be accused of contributing to the accidental death of your child, and the subsequent accusation of disposal of the body? Would you want this without any proof that you did these things? It should not depend on how resourceful the family is at getting back to work. I can't imagine that is fair whether you are a homeless drifter or a heart surgeon.
I always thought it was unfair to expect Amaral to change the opinion he formed during his time on the investigation because the investigation which followed was unable to propose another hypothesis. His hypothesis and the McCanns hypothesis both remained possibilities in the archiving report, but it seemed to me to give less credence to theirs.
-
I always thought it was unfair to expect Amaral to change the opinion he formed during his time on the investigation because the investigation which followed was unable to propose another hypothesis. His hypothesis and the McCanns hypothesis both remained possibilities in the archiving report, but it seemed to me to give less credence to theirs.
Well even if they were accused by the press of bumbling, that doesn't justify taking it out on the McCanns. One could think they had a slight advantage for they would know that they had not done what Amaral had said they did.
-
Well even if they were accused by the press of bumbling, that doesn't justify taking it out on the McCanns. One could think they had a slight advantage for they would know that they had not done what Amaral had said they did.
How would you know what the McCann's did or did not do Rob ?
So would your belief be, that if police had a theory about a potential crime, that no one should make allegations in case of libel ?
N.B. Look up the case of Jeffrey Archer and the prostitute.
-
How would you know what the McCann's did or did not do Rob ?
So would your belief be, that if police had a theory about a potential crime, that no one should make allegations in case of libel ?
N.B. Look up the case of Jeffrey Archer and the prostitute.
I'm saying the McCanns know what they have done or not done.
Question: If police had a theory about a potential crime, that no one should make allegations in case of libel?
Their role is to find evidence, not a trial by media.
-
I'm saying the McCanns know what they have done or not done.
Question: If police had a theory about a potential crime, that no one should make allegations in case of libel?
Their role is to find evidence, not a trial by media.
Yet you are happy that the McCann's used the media for their own ends, regardless of the situation that there was no evidence to support abduction, other than their say so ?
They weren't there of course when Madeleine disappeared, WERE THEY.
-
Taking it out on the McCanns? He described the investigation. How could he do that without explaining how they came to be suspected?
You talk about what they 'know', but you can only really refer to what they have said. You may believe what they say but neither you nor they can prove it.
It is more than what they say, it is what they know. You must admit the McCanns must know what they have done or not done. It is their life we are talking about. They might not know what happened to Madeleine they would know what they did or not (which is the usual case unless someone is intoxicated).
-
I'm saying the McCanns know what they have done or not done.
Question: If police had a theory about a potential crime, that no one should make allegations in case of libel?
Their role is to find evidence, not a trial by media.
I saw a couple use the media to persuade the world that their daughter had been abducted. I saw them threaten and attempt to silence anyone who expressed doubts about their story. Their supporters them handed a dossier to police and Sky news of people on the internet who expressed doubts about their story. The people who involved the media in this case were not the Portuguese police, that's for sure.
-
Yet you are happy that the McCann's used the media for their own ends, regardless of the situation that there was no evidence to support abduction, other than their say so ?
They weren't there of course when Madeleine disappeared, WERE THEY.
If they didn't dispose of a body what other options are there to abduction? All the early phone calls to their friends the McCanns talk of abduction because, as is natural, they would be aware if they had disposed of her. There was no other likely option. Even if she had wandered outside, it was unlike Madeleine to wander down town or across country. Parents know their kids. If she had wandered she was still abducted at some point IMO.
-
I saw a couple use the media to persuade the world that their daughter had been abducted. I saw them threaten and attempt to silence anyone who expressed doubts about their story. Their supporters them handed a dossier to police and Sky news of people on the internet who expressed doubts about their story. The people who involved the media in this case were not the Portuguese police, that's for sure.
Media was the book and the interview they refer to.
-
If they didn't dispose of a body what other options are there to abduction? All the early phone calls to their friends the McCanns talk of abduction because, as is natural, they would be aware if they had disposed of her. There was no other likely option. Even if she had wandered outside, it was unlike Madeleine to wander down town or across country. Parents know their kids. If she had wandered she was still abducted at some point IMO.
So Rob, you have transcripts of all the their phone and text conversations ?
You do know also, no evidence has shown that a third party was in the apartment that night, don't you.
As to walk and wondered, it doesn't necessarily get followed by an abduction.
-
Well even if they were accused by the press of bumbling, that doesn't justify taking it out on the McCanns. One could think they had a slight advantage for they would know that they had not done what Amaral had said they did.
Spot on Rob.
After suffering all the nasty disinformation put out about them, can you imagine the shock horror of finding that the police were on the point of indicting you on the death /concealing and disposal of the body of your much loved daughter ? When YOU KNEW that you were not involved in any way ?
-
I saw a couple use the media to persuade the world that their daughter had been abducted. I saw them threaten and attempt to silence anyone who expressed doubts about their story. Their supporters them handed a dossier to police and Sky news of people on the internet who expressed doubts about their story. The people who involved the media in this case were not the Portuguese police, that's for sure.
This is Opinion as Fact. Please have a care.
-
Spot on Rob.
After suffering all the nasty disinformation put out about them, can you imagine the shock horror of finding that the police were on the point of indicting you on the death /concealing and disposal of the body of your much loved daughter ? When YOU KNEW that you were not involved in any way ?
Again, Sadie, a reminder.
You do not know what happened, anymore than the rest of us.
You have your theories as do others, but nothing more.
-
Of course they know but you seem to be assuming that what they know is that they are innocent. What you can't do is prove it, any more than they can.
The discussion is about what the Mccanns KNOW about their non-involvemt and therefore the reasons why they defended themselves against the agressions of the PJ led by Amaral.
KNOWING that they had done nothing and with Amaral keeping pointing at them, of course they would and still will vigorously defend themselves.
They needed to be around to look after the Twins and to direct a search for Madeleine, not incarcerated in some jail for something they knew they hadn't done and unable to continue the search.
AIMHO
-
The discussion is about what the Mccanns KNOW about their non-involvemt and therefore the reasons why they defended themselves against the agressions of the PJ led by Amaral.
KNOWING that they had done nothing and with Amaral keeping pointing at them, of course they would and still will vigorously defend themselves.
They needed to be around to look after the Twins and to direct a search for Madeleine, not incarcerated in some jail for something they knew they hadn't done and unable to continue the search.
AIMHO
Again, a reminder Sadie, you do not know, who or who wasn't involved.
-
I can guarantee any of you in an unsolved missing child case if a cadaver dog alerted to your home, clothes and car (no other car alerted just yours!) then you would also NOT be cleared. It's simple - never cleared because professional police dogs brought in indicated a cadaver. That suggests the source of cadaver scent was the missing child never found.
-
Mostly your posts are relevant only if the McCanns are indeed innocent. That isn't a proven fact, it's just a belief you hold.
The Mccanns KNOW if they are innocent or not. No-one else at that point definitely knew. Although that might have changed since OG and the special section of the Porto police have further investigated.
Amaral did NOT know, yet he put about, or allowed to be put about, dreadful stories about them to blacken their names. He had no right to do this.
How inhuman is this?
Can you imagine the pain and bewilderment of just having lost your beloved daughter and knowing that you were innocent to suddenly find that they are spreading disinformation about you? Then it slowly dawns on you that they are looking to indicte you, rather than looking for your lovely hopefully living daughter.
That the police are not bothering to look for a living Madeleine, but they are merely looking for a dead child as a means of indicting you? Can you imagine the pain of that?
In my opinion
Now I am off to grab a rest.
-
Again, a reminder Sadie, you do not know, who or who wasn't involved.
I never said i did, altho having found out what I believe is evidence that Madeleine is still alive, I am pretty sure about who I know didn't do it ! 8(>((
-
The Mccanns KNOW if they are innocent or not. No-one else at that point definitely knew. Although that might have changed since OG and the special section of the Porto police have further investigated.
Amaral did NOT know, yet he put about, or allowed to be put about, dreadful stories about them to blacken their names. He had no right to do this.
How inhuman is this?
Now I am off to grab a rest.
Can you imagine the pain and bewilderment of just having lost your beloved daughter and knowing that you were innocent to suddenly find that they are spreading disinformation about you? Then it slowly dawns on you that they are looking to indicte you, rather than looking for your lovely hopefully living daughter.
That the police are not bothering to look for a living Madeleine, but they are merely looking for a dead child as a means of indicting you? Can you imagine the pain of that?
In my opinion
In that case OG perpetuate it,because they can't confirm if they are looking for a live or dead girl.
-
I never said i did, altho having found out what I believe is evidence that Madeleine is still alive, I am pretty sure about who I know didn't do it ! 8(>((
Unless you can back yourself up, with cites, it is meaningless. 8(0(*
-
OMG Kizzy.
I have never siad it was their home back garden, but I have said that it was LIKE their home back garden. ... And a block of flats with its own garden, perhaps with childrens play area etc in the UK. Posh private iones with tennis Courts and swimming pool maybe ... would you consider that like their own back garden? ... Do get your facts right pls.
THey were NOT in the BAR, they were in a different building, it was the RESTAURANT. ... Do get your facts right pls.
Maybe Butlins was unsafe cos the checkers never went in to physically check the children. The Mccanns went in and physically checked them ... Matt too, the second time he checked, but unfortunately he didn't look around the corner at Madeleines bed. ... BTW, ave you ever complained to Butlins about their checking system? Are you reserving all the complaints for the Mccanns. ... Why?
THe Mccanns fight for Madeleine all the time and clearing their names of smears has to be part of it. If all the propaganda and lies put out by people who are ignorant of the facts were allowed to stand unchallenged, then their names would be so trashed that no-one would support them in their labour of love, searching for their Madeleine
... Do you think that you could be ignorant of the facts perchance?
No i am not ignorant of the facts -the only real one is that they left maddie alone no one know what happened after that
You brought the Butlins up why should i complain to them -i don't even remember the listening service
What i do know it is a very child friendly place were parents etc spend time with their children.
Why do you think the mccannn took their children with them in the first place [adult holiday]
IMO a long journey for a child to spend there time in creches and home alone on a night.
I don't have to explain to you sadie why i post what i do about the mccann you are just another poster on here with different views to mine.
IMO the mccann are going to the ECHR for there own agenda-its about time they started dipping in there own pockets instead of everybody else's.
-
The Mccanns KNOW if they are innocent or not. No-one else at that point definitely knew. Although that might have changed since OG and the special section of the Porto police have further investigated.
Amaral did NOT know, yet he put about, or allowed to be put about, dreadful stories about them to blacken their names. He had no right to do this.
How inhuman is this?
Now I am off to grab a rest.
Can you imagine the pain and bewilderment of just having lost your beloved daughter and knowing that you were innocent to suddenly find that they are spreading disinformation about you? Then it slowly dawns on you that they are looking to indicte you, rather than looking for your lovely hopefully living daughter.
That the police are not bothering to look for a living Madeleine, but they are merely looking for a dead child as a means of indicting you? Can you imagine the pain of that?
In my opinion
Many people who have committed crimes have denied it. Peter Hogg and Adrian Prout both reported their wives to be missing, for example. They knew that wasn't true, but telling the truth would have got them into trouble.
The McCanns have said they had no involvement in the disappearance of their daughter. Only they know if that's true or not.
What is certain in my opinion is that something can't be assumed to be true just because someone says it is.
You have chosen to believe what the McCanns say and to accuse anyone who disagrees with you of being cruel, vindictive, lacking in empathy, and lots more. All your efforts are directed to supporting them and sympathising with their pain.
You may be right to believe them, I don't know. I do know that if you're wrong you will have expended your efforts in vain.
-
Many people who have committed crimes have denied it. Peter Hogg and Adrian Prout both reported their wives to be missing, for example. They knew that wasn't true, but telling the truth would have got them into trouble.
The McCanns have said they had no involvement in the disappearance of their daughter. Only they know if that's true or not.
What is certain in my opinion is that something can't be assumed to be true just because someone says it is.
You have chosen to believe what the McCanns say and to accuse anyone who disagrees with you of being cruel, vindictive, lacking in empathy, and lots more. All your efforts are directed to supporting them and sympathising with their pain.
You may be right to believe them, I don't know. I do know that if you're wrong you will have expended your efforts in vain.
I think you are right but you can catch out liars for they will not be able to cover all situations.
-
I think you are right but you can catch out liars for they will not be able to cover all situations.
It depends how good they are and how lucky they are in my opinion.
-
It depends how good they are and how lucky they are in my opinion.
I agree.
Peter Hogg for example was only caught because of the eventual convergence of two pieces of bad luck.
-
Well even if they were accused by the press of bumbling, that doesn't justify taking it out on the McCanns. One could think they had a slight advantage for they would know that they had not done what Amaral had said they did.
What interests me more is their alleged involvement after the fact. Still waiting to hear who instructed Metodo and Correia to go after Amaral and who was funding/sanctioning it?
-
What interests me more is their alleged involvement after the fact. Still waiting to hear who instructed Metodo and Correia to go after Amaral and who was funding/sanctioning it?
Amaral had already been indicted before Madeleine went missing. Whatever charges he faced were nothing to do with them.
-
What interests me more is their alleged involvement after the fact. Still waiting to hear who instructed Metodo and Correia to go after Amaral and who was funding/sanctioning it?
They were private detectives, hired by the mccann
The agency claims to have around 35 investigators working on the case and is being paid £50,000 a month by the Find Madeleine Fund.
-
Amaral had already been indicted before Madeleine went missing. Whatever charges he faced were nothing to do with them.
We know Correia only got involved in the Cipriano case because M3 were paying him. Amaral was his target to use the term used by Correia himself. The Ciprianos were irrelevant, it is no secret that Amaral was the target because of the Maddie case. Portuguese lawyer John Grade let the cat out of the bag when he revealed the earlier approach by M3 to take Amaral down.
-
They were private detectives, hired by the mccann
The agency claims to have around 35 investigators working on the case and is being paid £50,000 a month by the Find Madeleine Fund.
Hi kizzy. We have to be careful who we accuse because others were involved in giving orders to these PI's and Everest magnate Kennedy was one of them.
-
Unless you can back yourself up, with cites, it is meaningless. 8(0(*
No cites were needed
-
No cites were needed
It is when you have pointers. ?{)(**
-
The discussion is about what the Mccanns KNOW about their non-involvemt and therefore the reasons why they defended themselves against the agressions of the PJ led by Amaral.
KNOWING that they had done nothing and with Amaral keeping pointing at them, of course they would and still will vigorously defend themselves.
They needed to be around to look after the Twins and to direct a search for Madeleine, not incarcerated in some jail for something they knew they hadn't done and unable to continue the search.
AIMHO
Opinion as fact, please desist.
-
Again, a reminder Sadie, you do not know, who or who wasn't involved.
Didn't you notice the AIMHO at the bottom ?
Well OG seem convinced that Kate and Gerry weren't involved and I will go along with them rather than you ....Soz
But dont let it spoil our happy relationship @)(++(*
-
Didn't you notice the AIMHO at the bottom ?
Well OG seem convinced that Kate and Gerry weren't involved and I will go along with them rather than you ....Soz
But dont let it spoil our happy relationship @)(++(*
They haven't solved how Madeleine disappeared Sadie.
That is why we keep hearing for over two years, of the final.. final....final...final lead. 8((()*/
-
I can guarantee any of you in an unsolved missing child case if a cadaver dog alerted to your home, clothes and car (no other car alerted just yours!) then you would also NOT be cleared. It's simple - never cleared because professional police dogs brought in indicated a cadaver. That suggests the source of cadaver scent was the missing child never found.
You have it wrong PFinder.
It was necessary that both dogs sniffed everything, otherwise it was impossible to tell if Eddie was alerting to the desicated blood from a living person or to Cadavar odour.
Keela did NOT alert to Cadaver Odour, she only alerted to the desicated blood from a living person.
So if Eddie alerted it could be to the desicated blood from a living person. If Keela alerted too, then as she only alerted to te blood of a living person that ruled out Cadaver odour.
If she was shown the spots where Eddie alerted and she didn't alert to the place then it COULD be Cadaver Odour. COULD BE.
*********************************
There was ONLY ONE place where Eddie alerted and Keela didn't and that was between the bedhead and wardrobe, so this COULD have been an alert to cadavar Odour.
*********************************
However Tasmin Silences Grandpa used to live in 5A and his pyjamas would likely have been brought back from the hospital, where he died. Would they have cadaver odour on them ? The likely place where they would have been stored is in the bottom of the wardrobe or between the headboard and the wardrobe, close up to the wall.
Also, what happened to his ashes? With an elderly widow away from home, in a foreign country, she was likely to have kept them in an urn or box. And for comforting her, the most likely place was on the bedside table where she could touch the container and feel hubby was still around.
There was NO CADAVER alert in the clothes, nor the car cos Keela did not verify Eddies alert as Cadaver, but as blood from a living person.
There was only one valid alert in the flat and that was in the bedroom, just where the bedside table would have been.
We have learned on this forum that a dog will alert even to a burned up cadavar
It is my belief that Eddie was alerting to the odour of Tasmins Grandpas ashes. And there certainly is no reason to go throwing out of date and originally misunderstood opinions about because you dont know..
AIMHO
BTW, It is possible for the odour of desicated blood from a living person to be alerted to even 30 years after the bleed. Just how many people might have bled in that flat over 30 years. Even a bleeding mosquito bite could trigger an alert.
-
You have it wrong PFinder.
It was necessary that both dogs sniffed everything, otherwise it was impossibkle to tell if Eddie was alerting to the desicated blood from a living person or to Cadavar odour.
Keela did NOT alert to Cadaver Odour, she only alertede to the desicated blood from a living person.
So if Eddie alerted it could be the desicated blood from a living person. If Keela alerted too, then as she only alertted to te blood of a living person that ruled out Cadaver odour.
If she was shown the spots where Eddie alerted and she didn't alert to the place then it COULD be Cadaver Odour. COULD BE.
There was ONLY ONE place where Eddie alerted and Keela didn't and that was between the bedhead and wardrobe, so this COULD have been an alert to cadavar Odour.
However Tasmin Silences Grandpa used to live in 5A and his pyjamas would likely have been brought back from the hospital, wherehe died. Would they have cadaver odour on them ? The likely place where they would have been stored is in the bottom of the wardrobe or between the headboard and the wardrobe, close up to the wall.
Also, what happened to his ashes? With an elderly widow away from home, in a foreign country, she was likely to have kept them in an urn or box. And for comforting her, the most likely place was on the bedside table where she could touch the container and feel hubby was still around.
There was NO CADAVER alert in the clothes nor the car cos Keela did not verify Eddies alert as Cadaver, but as blood from a living person.
There was only one valid alert in the flat and that was in the bedroom, just where the bedside table would have been.
We have learned on this forum that a dog will alert even to a burned up cadavar
It is my belief that Eddie was alerting to the odour of Tasmins Grandpas ashes. And there certainly is no reason to go throwing out of date and originally misunderstood opinions about .
AIMHO
Have you studied Biochemistry and Forensic Science Sadie ?
-
Have you studied Biochemistry and Forensic Science Sadie ?
I have read all the Official documents on here, many by Grime, and all the information should be still on forum if you wish to check.
-
I have read all the Official documents on here, many by Grime, and all the information should be still on forum if you wish to check.
But for the Portuguese to read them they had to be translated first.
-
And so, but anyway as I was saying before I was 'removed'... Even IF the ECHR does by some fantastic miracle find the McCanns 'innocent' the Portugues can just show their.....
http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/856415/European-Court-of-Human-Rights-ECHR-rulings-Council-of-Europe-Thorbjorn-Jagland
Giggle ,giggle ,giggle...
-
And so, but anyway as I was saying before I was 'removed'... Even IF the ECHR does by some fantastic miracle find the McCanns 'innocent' the Portugues can just show their.....
http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/856415/European-Court-of-Human-Rights-ECHR-rulings-Council-of-Europe-Thorbjorn-Jagland
Giggle ,giggle ,giggle...
So what price the E.C.H.R. ?
-
So what price the E.C.H.R. ?
I can only assume they want to discredit the Portuguese Judiciary. Why? So that they can claim to be innocent victims. It can't be to help the 'search for Madeleine' because it seems like two police forces are doing that for them.
-
I can only assume they want to discredit the Portuguese Judiciary. Why? So that they can claim to be innocent victims. It can't be to help the 'search for Madeleine' because it seems like two police forces are doing that for them.
Agreed in my considered opinion it has nothing to do with Madeleine.
-
Agreed it has nothing to do with Madeleine.
Seconded Slarti. It is all about them.
Naturally I.M.O.
-
Too much Opinion as Fact. Please bear this in mind.
-
I don't think there is any ambiguity about the reasons why Madeleine's parents have made the decision to approach the European Court of Human Rights.
If their case is accepted, it will be interesting to see what points of law have been raised on their behalf.
It is, I think, a bit mean spirited to deride their right to take their case and Madeleine's cause to the European Court.
I wonder why it is deemed inappropriate by some that they should seek the protection of that court. It is worth remembering that they do have the same right to seek justice that every other European citizen enjoys.
I'm getting the firm impression from previous posts ... that there is a real worry they might actually succeed in doing so.
-
I don't think there is any ambiguity about the reasons why Madeleine's parents have made the decision to approach the European Court of Human Rights.
If their case is accepted, it will be interesting to see what points of law have been raised on their behalf.
It is, I think, a bit mean spirited to deride their right to take their case and Madeleine's cause to the European Court.
I wonder why it is deemed inappropriate by some that they should seek the protection of that court. It is worth remembering that they do have the same right to seek justice that every other European citizen enjoys.
I'm getting the firm impression from previous posts ... that there is a real worry they might actually succeed in doing so.
Do you seriously imagine Brietta, that the McCann's can take their case, be accepted, and take the state of Portugal to court, after what they have done in and to Portugal ?
-
the new court case if it goes ahead doesnt affect amaral at all does it? from my understanding the stance about his book etc will still stand even if they go to the euro court wont it and he wont owe the mcanns any money
-
Do you seriously imagine Brietta, that the McCann's can take their case, be accepted, and take the state of Portugal to court, after what they have done in and to Portugal ?
Strange things happen in law.
The first and possibly last hurdle is having the case accepted. Much will depend upon the capability of their lawyers and the strength or otherwise of their case.
If accepted, I have no doubt it will drag on for years and years and years.
-
the new court case if it goes ahead doesnt affect amaral at all does it? from my understanding the stance about his book etc will still stand even if they go to the euro court wont it and he wont owe the mcanns any money
Quite right Carly. There is also a considerable backlog in cases. The Supreme Court Judgement is unaffected and the McCann's have to pay up, or they will be pursued through the courts and that will involve more costs, for the money they owe.
It is, I.M.O. time they got over it, pay up and get on with their lives.
-
Strange things happen in law.
The first and possibly last hurdle is having the case accepted. Much will depend upon the capability of their lawyers and the strength or otherwise of their case.
If accepted, I have no doubt it will drag on for years and years and years.
Given that it has been said, there may be a back log of about four years in the European Court ... if the McCann case is accepted to be heard that will be about four years less than the time it took for McCann v Amaral in the Portuguese courts.
-
Given that it has been said, there may be a back log of about four years in the European Court ... if the McCann case is accepted to be heard that will be about four years less than the time it took for McCann v Amaral in the Portuguese courts.
Meanwhile, the Supreme Court decision will not be affected, and they will have to pay up.
Don't you agree Brietta.
-
Quite right Carly. There is also a considerable backlog in cases. The Supreme Court Judgement is unaffected and the McCann's have to pay up, or they will be pursued through the courts and that will involve more costs, for the money they owe.
It is, I.M.O. time they got over it, pay up and get on with their lives.
There will be points of law to be considered no doubt ... so were I you I really wouldn't concern myself too much with issues you patently know nothing about.
Like the taxman, as Amaral discovered to his cost ... Courts don't hang about when it comes to money and court orders ... so whatever your concerns I really do believe they are unfounded.
On the other hand ... bringing a flawed judgement to the arbitration of the European Court ... may well have thrown a spanner in the works? But you can't say for sure it didn't can you?
-
Meanwhile, the Supreme Court decision will not be affected, and they will have to pay up.
Don't you agree Brietta.
I do not know ... and more to the point neither do you.
-
Makes you wonder what is going on in the Portuguese investigation. Wouldn't it be 'helpful' for the McCanns to be seen to be pursuing the Portuguese for victimising them if all was not going well for them in Portugal ?
IMO
-
I do not know ... and more to the point neither do you.
Wrong Brietta.
They are facts.
Personally speaking, I hope they refuse to pay, get a taste of their own medicine and get dragged through the courts to recover what they owe.
-
Wrong Brietta.
They are facts.
Personally speaking, I hope they refuse to pay, get a taste of their own medicine and get dragged through the courts to recover what they owe.
Will you be disappointed if they do pay?
-
Wrong Brietta.
They are facts.
Personally speaking, I hope they refuse to pay, and get a taste of their own medicine and get dragged through the courts to recover what they owe.
It would be extraordinarily polite if now and then you would back up your assertions ... and make the attempt to tone down the malice at the same time.
If the McCann case is allowed to be heard ... I think there may be a real opportunity to redress the balance ... and with any luck by that time we may already know what happened to Madeleine and who is responsible for that.
We may even live to see her recovered.
Always remember there is a missing child at the root of this. Her parents want to find her ... Amaral has declared her dead.
-
It would be extraordinarily polite if now and then you would back up your assertions ... and make the attempt to tone down the malice at the same time.
If the McCann case is allowed to be heard ... I think there may be a real opportunity to redress the balance ... and with any luck by that time we may already know what happened to Madeleine and who is responsible for that.
We may even live to see her recovered.
Always remember there is a missing child at the root of this. Her parents want to find her ... Amaral has declared her dead.
What of the malice towards Amaral.
Now tell me what I have wrong in the two points I made.
The Supreme Court decision will stand and the McCann's will have to pay up.
If they don't do the latter , of course , what they owe will be recovered .
-
I do not know ... and more to the point neither do you.
I do! The Supreme Court ruling will not be affected and they need to pay what they owe;
The Court does not act as a court of appeal in relation to national courts; it does not rehear cases, it cannot quash, The Court is not empowered to overrule national decisions or annul national laws vary or revise their decisions.
http://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/Questions_Answers_ENG.pdf
-
I do! The Supreme Court ruling will not be affected and they need to pay what they owe;
The Court does not act as a court of appeal in relation to national courts; it does not rehear cases, it cannot quash, The Court is not empowered to overrule national decisions or annul national laws vary or revise their decisions.
http://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/Questions_Answers_ENG.pdf
The McCann supporters know this full well G-Unit.
I wonder why they still deny this.
-
It would be extraordinarily polite if now and then you would back up your assertions ... and make the attempt to tone down the malice at the same time.
If the McCann case is allowed to be heard ... I think there may be a real opportunity to redress the balance ... and with any luck by that time we may already know what happened to Madeleine and who is responsible for that.
We may even live to see her recovered.
Always remember there is a missing child at the root of this. Her parents want to find her ... Amaral has declared her dead.
Whatever the ECHR decides it won't change what Amaral has said or will say in the future. It won't change the supreme Court ruling. It won't affect the 'search for Madeleine' in any way. It's unlikely to change opinions about the case or the parents imo.
-
I do not know ... and more to the point neither do you.
So when the ECtHR say they cannot overturn judgements made by national courts you believe they don't understand their own powers?
-
It would be extraordinarily polite if now and then you would back up your assertions ... and make the attempt to tone down the malice at the same time.
If the McCann case is allowed to be heard ... I think there may be a real opportunity to redress the balance ... and with any luck by that time we may already know what happened to Madeleine and who is responsible for that.
We may even live to see her recovered.
Always remember there is a missing child at the root of this. Her parents want to find her ... Amaral has declared her dead.
Really? how did he do that then? surely that is beyond his powers?.
Do you not mean "Sr Amaral asserts Madeliene McCann is dead" ?
-
So when the ECtHR say they cannot overturn judgements made by national courts you believe they don't understand their own powers?
I am still waiting for Brietta to answer these questions when i asked earlier.
-
Really? how did he do that then? surely that is beyond his powers?.
Do you not mean "Sr Amaral asserts Madeliene McCann is dead" ?
Quite right.
Amaral doesn't declare a person is dead, though he may believe that.
-
I am still waiting for Brietta to answer these questions when i asked earlier.
We know what the answers are. The ECtHR has them plastered all over its website for all to read.
The issue is that some people believe this case to be of greater legal significance than it really is.
-
We know what the answers are. The ECtHR has them plastered all over its website for all to read.
The issue is that some people believe this case to be of greater legal significance than it really is.
Hope springs eternal I suppose.....
-
declare
dɪˈklɛː/Submit
verb
1.
say something in a solemn and emphatic manner.
"the prime minister declared that the programme of austerity had paid off"
synonyms: proclaim, announce, make known, state, communicate, reveal, divulge, mention, talk about, raise, moot, air, bring into the open, voice, articulate, pronounce, express, vent, set forth, make public, publicize, disseminate, circulate, publish, broadcast, promulgate, trumpet, blazon; informalcome out with, shout from the rooftops; literarynoise abroad, blazon abroad; rarepreconize
"she loses no opportunity to declare her political principles"
Please desist from the usual inane chatter.
adjective: inane
lacking sense or meaning; silly.
"don't badger people with inane questions"
synonyms: silly, foolish, stupid, fatuous, idiotic, absurd, ridiculous, ludicrous, laughable, risible, imbecilic, moronic, cretinous, unintelligent, witless, asinine, pointless, senseless, frivolous, nonsensical, brainless, mindless, thoughtless, vacuous, vapid, empty-headed; childish, puerile, infantile, jejune; informaldaft, dumb, dim, half-baked, gormless, damfool; informaldivvy; informalglaikit; informaldumb-ass; informaldof
"an inane remark"
antonyms: intelligent, sensible
Nice to see some members declaring inanely their rather obvious upset that Madeleine's parents are safeguarding her interests by taking their case to the European Court of Human Rights.
This is one so called supporter who will be content if their application is successful. ?{)(**
-
The outstanding costs in this case are limited to Court costs & lawyers fees. Nobody is personally responsible for any damages. In the event that the Madeleine's case is solved before an ECHR hearing it is not beyond the realms of possibility that the State of Portugal will intervene & settle all the McCanns' outstanding fees. If the McCanns are shown to be innocent, it would be a huge embarrassment to Portugal to be seen to collecting money from parents who have been much maligned & poorly treated by their justice system. As I said before, a cop-out by the SC when passing judgement.
All IMHO.
-
The outstanding costs in this case are limited to Court costs & lawyers fees. Nobody is personally responsible for any damages. In the event that the Madeleine's case is solved before an ECHR hearing it is not beyond the realms of possibility that the State of Portugal will intervene & settle all the McCanns' outstanding fees. If the McCanns are shown to be innocent, it would be a huge embarrassment to Portugal to be seen to collecting money from parents who have been much maligned & poorly treated by their justice system. As I said before, a cop-out by the SC when passing judgement.
All IMHO.
The costs are for lawyers fees and court costs. It has nothing to do with Portugal as a state.
As Duarte knows the McCanns are innocent will she waive her fees ?
-
The costs are for lawyers fees and court costs. It has nothing to do with Portugal as a state.
As Duarte knows the McCanns are innocent will she waive her fees ?
Oh I don't think so - she has to make a living, too.
-
The outstanding costs in this case are limited to Court costs & lawyers fees. Nobody is personally responsible for any damages. In the event that the Madeleine's case is solved before an ECHR hearing it is not beyond the realms of possibility that the State of Portugal will intervene & settle all the McCanns' outstanding fees. If the McCanns are shown to be innocent, it would be a huge embarrassment to Portugal to be seen to collecting money from parents who have been much maligned & poorly treated by their justice system. As I said before, a cop-out by the SC when passing judgement.
All IMHO.
I don't know what the bill amounts to but I expect it's pretty big. The McCanns owe the money to the Courts, but the Courts will use it to provide refunds to the defendants. They will get back the money they had to pay up front in court costs plus 50% of that amount towards the cost of their legal representatives. There may be other costs which can be claimed. If at some point in the future the Portuguese State is criticised by the ECHR they may pay something to the McCanns. Suggesting that they may meet all the costs they incurred is wishful thinking imo.
-
Oh I don't think so - she has to make a living, too.
From two maligned and poorly treated victims? Has she no shame ?
-
The Supreme Court decision will not be overturned and the McCann's will have to pay up.
-
declare
dɪˈklɛː/Submit
verb
1.
say something in a solemn and emphatic manner.
"the prime minister declared that the programme of austerity had paid off"
synonyms: proclaim, announce, make known, state, communicate, reveal, divulge, mention, talk about, raise, moot, air, bring into the open, voice, articulate, pronounce, express, vent, set forth, make public, publicize, disseminate, circulate, publish, broadcast, promulgate, trumpet, blazon; informalcome out with, shout from the rooftops; literarynoise abroad, blazon abroad; rarepreconize
"she loses no opportunity to declare her political principles"
Please desist from the usual inane chatter.
adjective: inane
lacking sense or meaning; silly.
"don't badger people with inane questions"
synonyms: silly, foolish, stupid, fatuous, idiotic, absurd, ridiculous, ludicrous, laughable, risible, imbecilic, moronic, cretinous, unintelligent, witless, asinine, pointless, senseless, frivolous, nonsensical, brainless, mindless, thoughtless, vacuous, vapid, empty-headed; childish, puerile, infantile, jejune; informaldaft, dumb, dim, half-baked, gormless, damfool; informaldivvy; informalglaikit; informaldumb-ass; informaldof
"an inane remark"
antonyms: intelligent, sensible
Go off and try the pack attack elsewhere ... it cuts absolutely no ice with me ... but nice to see you lot declaring inanely your rather obvious upset that Madeleine's parents are safeguarding her interests by taking their case to the European Court of Human Rights.
This is one so called supporter who will be content if their application is successful. ?{)(**
Dictionary corner? How does appealing to the ECHR 'safeguard Madeleine's interests' I wonder. In my opinion it's not in her parent's interests, let alone hers.
-
Dictionary corner? How does appealing to the ECHR 'safeguard Madeleine's interests' I wonder. In my opinion it's not in her parent's interests, let alone hers.
I did wonder about that myself. Perhaps the answer will be forthcoming.
-
Dictionary corner? How does appealing to the ECHR 'safeguard Madeleine's interests' I wonder. In my opinion it's not in her parent's interests, let alone hers.
What I notice is that it keeps Madeleine's name in the media, it keeps the public interested in the case, even if it is only criticising the parents actions. Spend 50k on private detectives or 50k on taking a case to the ECHR and I'd guarantee more value for their money from the court case. (All a matter of opinion).
-
What I notice is that it keeps Madeleine's name in the media, it keeps the public interested in the case, even if it is only criticising the parents actions. Spend 50k on private detectives or 50k on taking a case to the ECHR and I'd guarantee more value for their money from the court case. (All a matter of opinion).
That would depend on what the aim was. Neither action is likely to find her. IMO
-
That would depend on what the aim was. Neither action is likely to find her. IMO
I'm just talking to someone who recons they know about the person who has her. something like that.
-
I'm just talking to someone who recons they know about the person who has her. something like that.
Make sure he doesn't try to sell you a bridge.
-
The outstanding costs in this case are limited to Court costs & lawyers fees. Nobody is personally responsible for any damages. In the event that the Madeleine's case is solved before an ECHR hearing it is not beyond the realms of possibility that the State of Portugal will intervene & settle all the McCanns' outstanding fees. If the McCanns are shown to be innocent, it would be a huge embarrassment to Portugal to be seen to collecting money from parents who have been much maligned & poorly treated by their justice system. As I said before, a cop-out by the SC when passing judgement.
All IMHO.
If the McCanns are shown to be innocent? innocent of what? what kind of court case do you think this is?
I think some people are reinventing what the ECHR does. Maybe it has changed since I last looked .. but wait..
-
If the McCanns are shown to be innocent? innocent of what? what kind of court case do you think this is?
I think some people are reinventing what the ECHR does. Maybe it has changed since I last looked .. but wait..
I mean if the Portuguese arrest the people who were responsible for Madeleine's disappearance & it's not the McCanns, they will be "more innocent" when the ECHR consider their case agains the State of Portugal.
-
I mean if the Portuguese arrest the people who were responsible for Madeleine's disappearance & it's not the McCanns, they will be "more innocent" when the ECHR consider their case agains the State of Portugal.
That would be true only if these people had been convicted. Arrest means nothing.
-
I mean if the Portuguese arrest the people who were responsible for Madeleine's disappearance & it's not the McCanns, they will be "more innocent" when the ECHR consider their case agains the State of Portugal.
Yet again.
An abduction has not been proved, and neither has the presence of a third party in the apartment that night.
-
I mean if the Portuguese arrest the people who were responsible for Madeleine's disappearance & it's not the McCanns, they will be "more innocent" when the ECHR consider their case agains the State of Portugal.
errrr no, that is not how this works. IF the PJ find an abductor/murderer and they are not the McCanns. Nothing will happen at all at the ECHR. Nothing will happen to Amaral either- apart from his and the PJ's theory will be trashed is all.
But the McCanns still have to pay Amaral.
-
What I notice is that it keeps Madeleine's name in the media, it keeps the public interested in the case, even if it is only criticising the parents actions. Spend 50k on private detectives or 50k on taking a case to the ECHR and I'd guarantee more value for their money from the court case. (All a matter of opinion).
Her name's been in the media for ten years. Has being turned into the most famous missing child in the world helped her? Not in the least, in my opinion. She is still missing and still no-one knows why or where she went.
-
I did wonder about that myself. Perhaps the answer will be forthcoming.
Perhaps, perhaps, perhaps,...but then again Not bloomin likely
-
I mean if the Portuguese arrest the people who were responsible for Madeleine's disappearance & it's not the McCanns, they will be "more innocent" when the ECHR consider their case agains the State of Portugal.
The ECHR, if they take the case, will decide if the state of Portugal violated the McCanns human rights. As the Courts didn't give an opinion on their guilt or innocence that isn't relevant in my opinion.
It must be reminded that, in the present case, the issue isn't the appellants' penal liability, in other words their innocence or their guilt concerning the facts leading to the disappearance of her daughter doesn't have to be appreciated here.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=7937.15 Page 69
-
Madeleine's parents' rights and their determination to protect them in the
European court, are inexorably linked to safeguarding her.
Which made their application to the ECHR for the recognition of the rights wilfully abrogated by the Portuguese appeal court judges inevitable and necessary.
There are no guarantees either for Madeleine or her parents regarding the outcome of the present police investigations trying to find out what happened to her.
Her parents may well have to keep working for her on their own.
In my opinion they have had their right to the presumption of innocence removed by the Portuguese court. That has the potential to hinder any future work they may undertake on Madeleine's behalf.
In my opinion only ... it will be worth waiting to see what the McCann legals have requested on their behalf.
-
Madeleine's parents' rights and their determination to protect them in the
European court, are inexorably linked to safeguarding her.
Which made their application to the ECHR for the recognition of the rights wilfully abrogated by the Portuguese appeal court judges inevitable and necessary.
There are no guarantees either for Madeleine or her parents regarding the outcome of the present police investigations trying to find out what happened to her.
Her parents may well have to keep working for her on their own.
In my opinion they have had their right to the presumption of innocence removed by the Portuguese court. That has the potential to hinder any future work they may undertake on Madeleine's behalf.
In my opinion only ... it will be worth waiting to see what the McCann legals have requested on their behalf.
What did this Portuguese court say to foster your belief that they removed the McCann's right to the presumption of innocence? I'm sure you have a cite for our perusal.
-
errrr no, that is not how this works. IF the PJ find an abductor/murderer and they are not the McCanns. Nothing will happen at all at the ECHR. Nothing will happen to Amaral either- apart from his and the PJ's theory will be trashed is all.
But the McCanns still have to pay Amaral.
Now that is justice!
-
Now that is justice!
If people are found who 'disappeared' Madeleine that doesn't change the fact that the McCanns came under suspicion or whether someone libelled them by writing about it. Two different things imo.
-
What did this Portuguese court say to foster your belief that they removed the McCann's right to the presumption of innocence? I'm sure you have a cite for our perusal.
Groundhog day.
Portugal Supreme Court: The McCanns are not cleared in Maddie Case
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=7933.0
-
Groundhog day.
Portugal Supreme Court: The McCanns are not cleared in Maddie Case
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=7933.0
Are you quoting the whole thread as a cite?
-
Are you quoting the whole thread as a cite?
Well most of us here did contribute to it Robitty.
It is fairly recent so unless the short term memory is really shot up we should be able to recall vaguely what was said particularly our own contributions and responses to other contributions ... and the fact that said sayings had as forum protocol dictates provenance at time of posting.
I don't know about anyone else on the forum ... but there are occasions when I find the ploy of having to revisit groundhog day tremendously tiresome ... particularly when the subject material is recent and well discussed.
-
If the McCanns are shown to be innocent? innocent of what? what kind of court case do you think this is?
I think some people are reinventing what the ECHR does. Maybe it has changed since I last looked .. but wait..
A very good point MTI. The ECHR can only rule on whether ones human rights have been impinged, it has nothing whatsoever to do with guilt or innocence in any national determination as you correctly pointed out.
-
Groundhog day.
Portugal Supreme Court: The McCanns are not cleared in Maddie Case
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=7933.0
You seem to be suggesting that anything discussed previously shouldn't be discussed again. Or are you suggesting that the previous thread reached the conclusion that a Portuguese court removed the McCann's right to the presumption of innocence? You may have reached that conclusion, but others didn't. I accept that you made it clear it was merely your opinion, so I will content myself with saying that your opinion is wrong (in my opinion)
The Supreme Court judges pointed out that the McCanns were not cleared by the archiving report. Some people think that amounted to removing their right to the presumption of innocence. I disagree.
-
Her name's been in the media for ten years. Has being turned into the most famous missing child in the world helped her? Not in the least, in my opinion. She is still missing and still no-one knows why or where she went.
Except for those involved if they exist.
-
Well most of us here did contribute to it Robitty.
It is fairly recent so unless the short term memory is really shot up we should be able to recall vaguely what was said particularly our own contributions and responses to other contributions ... and the fact that said sayings had as forum protocol dictates provenance at time of posting.
I don't know about anyone else on the forum ... but there are occasions when I find the ploy of having to revisit groundhog day tremendously tiresome ... particularly when the subject material is recent and well discussed.
In my opinion it doesn't matter how recent or well discussed a subject is. You said;
In my opinion they have had their right to the presumption of innocence removed by the Portuguese court. That has the potential to hinder any future work they may undertake on Madeleine's behalf.
If your first sentence is incorrect it renders your second one meaningless in my opinion.
-
Madeleine's parents' rights and their determination to protect them in the
European court, are inexorably linked to safeguarding her.
Which made their application to the ECHR for the recognition of the rights wilfully abrogated by the Portuguese appeal court judges inevitable and necessary.
There are no guarantees either for Madeleine or her parents regarding the outcome of the present police investigations trying to find out what happened to her.
Her parents may well have to keep working for her on their own.
In my opinion they have had their right to the presumption of innocence removed by the Portuguese court. That has the potential to hinder any future work they may undertake on Madeleine's behalf.
In my opinion only ... it will be worth waiting to see what the McCann legals have requested on their behalf.
This has been pointed out somewhere else in this thread but it is worth repeating as different people read different sections of the thread at different times.
In my view the Portuguese Supreme Court did not impinge the McCanns right to a presumption of innocence but merely pointed out that no evidence has ever been adduced to establish that innocence. A subtle difference but an important one in my opinion.
-
Nice to see some members declaring inanely their rather obvious upset that Madeleine's parents are safeguarding her interests by taking their case to the European Court of Human Rights.
This is one so called supporter who will be content if their application is successful. ?{)(**
Personally I think it is more to do with their own interests given what happened to Madeleine.
-
http://www.advokat-danielsen.no/downloads/D-%20COURT_n2703477_v1_CASE_OF_A__v__NORWAY.pdf
It is well worth a read to see why the McCanns will probably be successful in the ECHR. Bear in mind that in the case the Portuguese SC used to arrive at their judgement (Fernandes e Fernandes) the person libelled was at the top of the Portuguese justice system & his working life was very much under public scrutiny - he was accountable to the public through the justice system. His right to privacy was less than the McCanns under Article 8.
IMO.
-
http://www.advokat-danielsen.no/downloads/D-%20COURT_n2703477_v1_CASE_OF_A__v__NORWAY.pdf
It is well worth a read to see why the McCanns will probably be successful in the ECHR. Bear in mind that in the case the Portuguese SC used to arrive at their judgement (Fernandes e Fernandes) the person libelled was at the top of the Portuguese justice system & his working life was very much under public scrutiny - he was accountable to the public through the justice system. His right to privacy was less than the McCanns under Article 8.
IMO.
The cases have nothing in common Misty, clutching at straws comes to mind.
-
The cases have nothing in common Misty, clutching at straws comes to mind.
Would you care to explain why they don't have anything in common if you have read the whole judgement?
-
Would you care to explain why they don't have anything in common if you have read the whole judgement?
The gentleman whose case you relate was convicted of a crime, he did not seek publicity, indeed, he remains anonymous. The McCanns have never been convicted of any crime but sought and received substantial publicity and continue to elicit it. You cannot expect privacy when you actively seek public exposure.
-
The gentleman whose case you relate was convicted of a crime, he did not seek publicity, indeed, he remains anonymous. The McCanns have never been convicted of any crime but sought and received substantial publicity and continue to elicit it. You cannot expect privacy when you actively seek public exposure.
You do have the right to a good name. In both cases there are false accusations & the presumption of innocence is breached by the media (not admissible under article 8 but taken into consideration by the ECHR). In both cases the lives of those libelled have been adversely affected- Kate had to give up her job & the family has endured a relentless campaign of hate against them. In 10 years, none of the accusations made in Amaral's book have been proven true or resulted in criminal charges. Public exposure was sought not for themselves but for their missing child.
-
http://www.advokat-danielsen.no/downloads/D-%20COURT_n2703477_v1_CASE_OF_A__v__NORWAY.pdf
It is well worth a read to see why the McCanns will probably be successful in the ECHR. Bear in mind that in the case the Portuguese SC used to arrive at their judgement (Fernandes e Fernandes) the person libelled was at the top of the Portuguese justice system & his working life was very much under public scrutiny - he was accountable to the public through the justice system. His right to privacy was less than the McCanns under Article 8.
IMO.
The case you have linked to appears to concern a newspaper strongly suggesting that one of the people interviewed by the police was the 'prime suspect'. They also made it possible for others to identify him.
The man wasn't a suspect, he was a witness. As a result of the newspaper article he lost his home and job and suffered hardship.
The ECHR ruled that the newspaper violated his right to respect for his private life under
Article 8.
The McCanns were suspects, not witnesses, as documented in the official files.
He described why they became suspects, using the official files as his basis.
They weren't exposed to the public by anything Amaral said, they were already firmly in the public eye.
They were unable to prove any damage to their private lives by Amaral.
-
You do have the right to a good name. In both cases there are false accusations & the presumption of innocence is breached by the media (not admissible under article 8 but taken into consideration by the ECHR). In both cases the lives of those libelled have been adversely affected- Kate had to give up her job & the family has endured a relentless campaign of hate against them. In 10 years, none of the accusations made in Amaral's book have been proven true or resulted in criminal charges. Public exposure was sought not for themselves but for their missing child.
The accusations against the McCanns are documented in the official files from the investigation. They weren't invented by a newspaper or by Amaral.
I have never seen it said before that Kate McCann had to give up her job due to Amaral's book. She resigned, I believe, in February 2008, five months before his book was published.
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/kate-quits-as-gp-to-work-for-kids-1649946
There is no proven connection between Amaral's book and any so-called 'campaign of hate'.
A person is still a public figure regardless of their reasons for being one.
-
The case you have linked to appears to concern a newspaper strongly suggesting that one of the people interviewed by the police was the 'prime suspect'. They also made it possible for others to identify him.
The man wasn't a suspect, he was a witness. As a result of the newspaper article he lost his home and job and suffered hardship.
The ECHR ruled that the newspaper violated his right to respect for his private life under
Article 8.
The McCanns were suspects, not witnesses, as documented in the official files.
He described why they became suspects, using the official files as his basis.
They weren't exposed to the public by anything Amaral said, they were already firmly in the public eye.
They were unable to prove any damage to their private lives by Amaral.
The McCanns became suspects as a result of a procedural decision made by the very person who later reported on it in the form of a book. The basis of that decision could never be questioned by the McCanns as no criminal charges were ever forthcoming.
They were as innocent in the process (presumption of innocence) as the witness who was accused by a "journalist" of being the prime suspect in another case. The difference is, in the McCann case the "journalist" was the active accuser with direct knowledge of their personal lives whereas the Norwegian newspaper were stating their opinion as a third party which had acquired information from the police.
-
The McCanns became suspects as a result of a procedural decision made by the very person who later reported on it in the form of a book. The basis of that decision could never be questioned by the McCanns as no criminal charges were ever forthcoming.
They were as innocent in the process (presumption of innocence) as the witness who was accused by a "journalist" of being the prime suspect in another case. The difference is, in the McCann case the "journalist" was the active accuser with direct knowledge of their personal lives whereas the Norwegian newspaper were stating their opinion as a third party which had acquired information from the police.
That is wrong on so many levels misty. The McCanns became suspects because of evidence and other material gathered by numerous police officers. That evidence was placed before the prosecutor and he decided based on that evidence to bring the parents in for formal interview and to designate them as arguidos or formal suspects/persons of interest to the investigation. Amaral was merely a cog in that process, to suggest otherwise and in particular to infer that it was his decision alone is severely flawed.
For better or for worse, Amaral has become the defacto face of the prosecution in the McCann case. He was the Coordinator, the lead detective in the case, he fulfilled his responsibilities to the best of his ability imo. It was his job to report the facts of the case upward to his superiors, he did not have authority beyond his station.
-
The McCanns became suspects as a result of a procedural decision made by the very person who later reported on it in the form of a book. The basis of that decision could never be questioned by the McCanns as no criminal charges were ever forthcoming.
They were as innocent in the process (presumption of innocence) as the witness who was accused by a "journalist" of being the prime suspect in another case. The difference is, in the McCann case the "journalist" was the active accuser with direct knowledge of their personal lives whereas the Norwegian newspaper were stating their opinion as a third party which had acquired information from the police.
Amaral was third in the hierarchy of those in charge of the investigation. On what grounds are you suggesting that he alone was responsible for making procedural decisions?
There were other options available to the McCanns, such as objecting to the archiving of the case.
Amaral's accusations matched the investigation's accusations. The Norwegian newspaper's accusations didn't.
-
That is wrong on so many levels misty. The McCanns became suspects because of evidence and other material gathered by numerous police officers. That evidence was placed before the prosecutor and he decided based on that evidence to bring the parents in for formal interview and to designate them as arguidos or formal suspects/persons of interest to the investigation. Amaral was merely a cog in that process, to suggest otherwise and in particular to infer that it was his decision alone is severely flawed.
For better or for worse, Amaral has become the defacto face of the prosecution in the McCann case. He was the Coordinator, the lead detective in the case, he fulfilled his responsibilities to the best of his ability imo. It was his job to report the facts of the case upward to his superiors, he did not have authority beyond his station.
In order to disprove what I have stated, would you or someone please link to the evidence which was sent to the PP prior to the McCanns being made arguidos?
Tavares de Almeida's interim report, addressed to the Co-ordinator of the Investigaion, is dated 11th September. A previous report dated 3rd September merely requested further a rogatory letter for additional investigative work considered necessary in the UK.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/TAVARES_ALMEIDA.htm
-
The accusations against the McCanns are documented in the official files from the investigation. They weren't invented by a newspaper or by Amaral.
I have never seen it said before that Kate McCann had to give up her job due to Amaral's book. She resigned, I believe, in February 2008, five months before his book was published.
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/kate-quits-as-gp-to-work-for-kids-1649946
There is no proven connection between Amaral's book and any so-called 'campaign of hate'.
A person is still a public figure regardless of their reasons for being one.
I will answer this post when I have had chance to assemble all the relevant information.
-
In order to disprove what I have stated, would you or someone please link to the evidence which was sent to the PP prior to the McCanns being made arguidos?
Tavares de Almeida's interim report, addressed to the Co-ordinator of the Investigaion, is dated 11th September. A previous report dated 3rd September merely requested further a rogatory letter for additional investigative work considered necessary in the UK.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/TAVARES_ALMEIDA.htm
The Portuguese police pursued the matter on the basis of the evidence and leads they were presented with. There are numerous threads on here which deal with that evidence so I have no wish to trawl through it all again. Needless to say, the actions of the parents attracted close interest and scrutiny by those charged to investigate Madeleine's disappearance. They would have been guilty of a dereliction of duty had they not pursued those leads.
-
You do have the right to a good name. In both cases there are false accusations & the presumption of innocence is breached by the media (not admissible under article 8 but taken into consideration by the ECHR). In both cases the lives of those libelled have been adversely affected- Kate had to give up her job & the family has endured a relentless campaign of hate against them. In 10 years, none of the accusations made in Amaral's book have been proven true or resulted in criminal charges. Public exposure was sought not for themselves but for their missing child.
Which part of the act is a “right to a good name”?
-
Which part of the act is a “right to a good name”?
http://www.echr.coe.int/LibraryDocs/Roagna2012_EN.pdf
See page 12"What is private life". Perhaps in my haste I should have said "right to protect your image or reputation".
-
http://www.echr.coe.int/LibraryDocs/Roagna2012_EN.pdf
See page 12"What is private life". Perhaps in my haste I should have said "right to protect your image or reputation".
Very much entangled in Private vs. Public IMHO.
-
I will answer this post when I have had chance to assemble all the relevant information.
I would be interested in knowing why you seemed to think Kate McCann had to give up her job. That suggests to me that she had no choice.
-
I would be interested in knowing why you seemed to think Kate McCann had to give up her job. That suggests to me that she had no choice.
To be fair there were several reasons. Someone in her position with the public exposure she received could never hope to hold a job where she came face to face with Joe Public every day. Just imagine the abuse she could have attracted by those who dispute her version of events. She has since gone back to a more suitable post within the industry where exposure is very much limited.
She also needed time out to concentrate on the search for Madeleine although arguable as to what she actually did. Then there was the mammoth task of writing her book and all that came with it followed by the legal actions, appeals etc in Portugal.
Finally, the other reason she chose to give up work was to concentrate on the twins in their early years.
-
To be fair there were several reasons. Someone in her position with the public exposure she received could never hope to hold a job where she came face to face with Joe Public every day. Just imagine the abuse she could have attracted by those who dispute her version of events. She has since gone back to a more suitable post within the industry where exposure is very much limited.
She also needed time out to concentrate on the search for Madeleine although arguable as to what she actually did. Then there was the mammoth task of writing her book and all that came with it followed by the legal actions, appeals etc in Portugal.
Finally, the other reason she chose to give up work was to concentrate on the twins in their early years.
I was wondering why Misty seemed to be linking Kate's resignation to Amaral's book.
I agree with you that interacting with the public would have been a bad idea, but Kate never gave that as a reason for resigning, except to say she might not have been patient with 'time wasters'. She said nothing about how patients might have behaved towards her. How do you know what type of job she's doing now?
-
http://www.echr.coe.int/LibraryDocs/Roagna2012_EN.pdf
See page 12"What is private life". Perhaps in my haste I should have said "right to protect your image or reputation".
The Mccanns put their life in the media.
Quite deliberately.
-
The Mccanns put their life in the media.
Quite deliberately.
Page 63
And also, they are voluntary public figures, because they accepted to be thrown into the vulnerability of the public sphere, as a consequence of the role that they tried to assume in the public debate in which they decided to intervene.
Actually, as stated in the judgement under appeal and as it results from the proven facts, it was the appellants themselves who, by virtue of having easy access to the public debate, multiplied in interviews and interventions in the national and international media. Thus they opened the way for any person wishing equally to express an opinion on the case, contradicting their thesis.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=7937.15
-
As a reminder...................
'I couldn’t make love to Gerry'
https://www.thesun.co.uk/archives/news/534451/i-couldnt-make-love-to-gerry/
Note, for some people.
It is not an opinion that the McCann's put themselves voluntarily in the media.
It is a fact, as the above quote amply demonstrates.
I find it in bad taste.
-
As a reminder...................
'I couldn’t make love to Gerry'
https://www.thesun.co.uk/archives/news/534451/i-couldnt-make-love-to-gerry/
Note, for some people.
It is not an opinion that the McCann's put themselves voluntarily in the media.
It is a fact, as the above quote amply demonstrates.
I find it in bad taste.
Are you implying just because someone is a public person another is allowed to say what they like about that person?
-
Are you implying just because someone is a public person another is allowed to say what they like about that person?
The Mccanns chose to use the media for their own ends.
Tell me Rob, how did that story aid the 'search for Madeleine ?
-
The Mccanns chose to use the media for their own ends.
Tell me Rob, how did that story aid the 'search for Madeleine ?
It had people looking for Madeleine all over the world. Billions of sets of eyes.
-
It had people looking for Madeleine all over the world. Billions of sets of eyes.
All looking for and some reporting blonde 4 year olds.
-
It had people looking for Madeleine all over the world. Billions of sets of eyes.
l
.
How would talking about their private lives would result in people searching ?
I'm all ears on that one .
-
It had people looking for Madeleine all over the world. Billions of sets of eyes.
Hardly. Most of the world population was not looking for her.
-
Hardly. Most of the world population was not looking for her.
Or there again billions of eyes failed to see her,perhaps she was not any where to be seen.
-
Are you implying just because someone is a public person another is allowed to say what they like about that person?
Stephen is saying that if you go down the road of seeking public sympathy, don't go crying when it all turns sour.
-
Stephen is saying that if you go down the road of seeking public sympathy, don't go crying when it all turns sour.
I don't see them crying but standing up for justice.
-
I don't see them crying but standing up for justice.
What justice are you referring to Rob ?
After all, but for what they did, this part of the forum wouldn't exist.
-
I don't see them crying but standing up for justice.
The Supreme court pointed out that by using the media to broadcast their theory they opened up the possibility that other, opposing, theories might be broadcast. I think that's just. It would be unjust if only one opinion was allowed to be heard, surely?
-
The McCanns lawyers used various arguments as to why Amaral's theory shouldn't be heard.
1. The McCanns were cleared by the archiving report.
2. Amaral was constrained by Judicial secrecy.
3. As a retired policeman, Amaral was supposed to respect the presumption of innocence.
All three were dismissed during the appeals process.
-
The Supreme court pointed out that by using the media to broadcast their theory they opened up the possibility that other, opposing, theories might be broadcast. I think that's just. It would be unjust if only one opinion was allowed to be heard, surely?
I have heard the McCanns say they don't mind people having theories but even the title of his book seemed to be presenting the ideas as fact not theory. "The truth of the lie" suggests more than just another theory.
The McCanns lawyers used various arguments as to why Amaral's theory shouldn't be heard.
1. The McCanns were cleared by the archiving report.
2. Amaral was constrained by Judicial secrecy.
3. As a retired policeman, Amaral was supposed to respect the presumption of innocence.
All three were dismissed during the appeals process.
Is it any wonder they want to go to the ECHR for a ruling.
-
I have heard the McCanns say they don't mind people having theories but even the title of his book seemed to be presenting the ideas as fact not theory. "The truth of the lie" suggests more than just another theory.Is it any wonder they want to go to the ECHR for a ruling.
Is it known what ruling they want though?
-
Have they submitted the reasons yet? Would the ECHR be obliged to publish them before acceptance ?
-
I have heard the McCanns say they don't mind people having theories but even the title of his book seemed to be presenting the ideas as fact not theory. "The truth of the lie" suggests more than just another theory.Is it any wonder they want to go to the ECHR for a ruling.
Maybe you should read the book and understand that it a theory based on the information and position of the investigation when GA left. Too many people appear to want to condemn the book for what they “hope” it says.
-
I have heard the McCanns say they don't mind people having theories but even the title of his book seemed to be presenting the ideas as fact not theory. "The truth of the lie" suggests more than just another theory.Is it any wonder they want to go to the ECHR for a ruling.
You think the ECHR is going to consider and give a judgement on what the title of a book 'suggests'? I think you have completely misunderstood their raison d'etre.
-
Is it known what ruling they want though?
No one seems to know. I am sure were it "properly" in the public domain we would have heard all about it from alpha to omega by now
They will however have to make do with whatever ruling the ECtHR slings at them rather than what they may want.
-
You think the ECHR is going to consider and give a judgement on what the title of a book 'suggests'? I think you have completely misunderstood their raison d'etre.
Hopefully they look at it as a whole and decide whether this was a public servant breaking his own country's code of conduct rules or whether it was just Joe Citizen coming up with a theory.
-
Hopefully they look at it as a whole and decide whether this was a public servant breaking his own country's code of conduct rules or whether it was just Joe Citizen coming up with a theory.
I think you misunderstand what the ECHR is for?
-
I think you misunderstand what the ECHR is for?
I probably do but that is what I hope for.
-
I think you misunderstand what the ECHR is for?
This is my 3rd post on this.. censorship is something the ECHR really don't like supporting.
It really doesn't matter that the reason for taking Portugal to court for Human Rights is, that fact remains No Country has to abide by their ruling so it really is very very muchy muchy pointless.
Here is what is NOT going to happen:
ECHR will NOT listen to individuals moanings about bent cops
ECHR will not produce any documentation to 'clear' the McCanns because a crime has not been established and supported with evidence
ECHR will not make the Portuguese Government hang Amaral from a tall tree for munching on sardines and other sea creatures while a child was claimed to be missing.
I mean that is a bit rich them complaining about Amaral eating his din dins when the Tapas eating theirs is what caused this whole sorry mess. Oooops there I go making accusations about them leaving their children alone night after night.
-
http://portugalresident.com/judges-%E2%80%9Cfeel-pressured-to-reach-decisions-in-record-time%E2%80%9D
Posted by PORTUGALPRESS on October 13, 2017
Judges feel “pressured to deliver judgements in record time”.
So says Manuela Paupério who is not a stand-up comedian: she is the president of the association of the country’s judges’ syndicates.
Paupério dropped this ‘bombshell’ - considering Portugal is a country where justice has become notorious for taking far too long - in the right company.
She was addressing the 11th national congress in Figueira da Foz, thus there will have been no laughing in the aisles.
Tabloid Correio de Manhã has highlighted her speech today, explaining that judges’ pressures, according to Paupério, follow “growing visibility given to decision-making”.
In the syndicate boss’ opinion, this is not the way forwards.
Decisions should not take more than a “reasonable time” but they should be “considered, prudent and reflected”, taken without “constraints or pressures”.
At the roots of judicial discontent are delays in the “revision” of the judges’ Statute, which should have been concluded six years ago.
The constant postponement, said Paupério, shows the lack of consideration given to this sovereign power. Indeed, she recalled that president of the Supreme Tribunal of Justice António Gaspar, has already complained that judicial power is the “poor relation in the closed condominium of other sovereign powers”.
Elsewhere, reports explain that both the president of the republic Marcelo Rebelo de Sousa, and prime minister António Costa, “made up part of the (congress') programme, but were not present”.
Absent too was the Minister of Justice who was represented by her secretary of state.
Concluded Paupério: “All judges want are the respect and consideration due to any citizen who performs a service of elevated public interest”.
natasha.donn@algarveresident.com
=================================================================
I wonder how rushed the SC were when they ruled against the McCanns?
-
http://portugalresident.com/judges-%E2%80%9Cfeel-pressured-to-reach-decisions-in-record-time%E2%80%9D
Posted by PORTUGALPRESS on October 13, 2017
Judges feel “pressured to deliver judgements in record time”.
So says Manuela Paupério who is not a stand-up comedian: she is the president of the association of the country’s judges’ syndicates.
Paupério dropped this ‘bombshell’ - considering Portugal is a country where justice has become notorious for taking far too long - in the right company.
She was addressing the 11th national congress in Figueira da Foz, thus there will have been no laughing in the aisles.
Tabloid Correio de Manhã has highlighted her speech today, explaining that judges’ pressures, according to Paupério, follow “growing visibility given to decision-making”.
In the syndicate boss’ opinion, this is not the way forwards.
Decisions should not take more than a “reasonable time” but they should be “considered, prudent and reflected”, taken without “constraints or pressures”.
At the roots of judicial discontent are delays in the “revision” of the judges’ Statute, which should have been concluded six years ago.
The constant postponement, said Paupério, shows the lack of consideration given to this sovereign power. Indeed, she recalled that president of the Supreme Tribunal of Justice António Gaspar, has already complained that judicial power is the “poor relation in the closed condominium of other sovereign powers”.
Elsewhere, reports explain that both the president of the republic Marcelo Rebelo de Sousa, and prime minister António Costa, “made up part of the (congress') programme, but were not present”.
Absent too was the Minister of Justice who was represented by her secretary of state.
Concluded Paupério: “All judges want are the respect and consideration due to any citizen who performs a service of elevated public interest”.
natasha.donn@algarveresident.com
=================================================================
I wonder how rushed the SC were when they ruled against the McCanns?
Well they took the time to write a 75 page report.........
-
Well they took the time to write a 75 page report.........
It took 75 pages to impart the ruling that Goncalo was not guilty but was inconclusive with respect to his pursuers? That my dears is called an own goal!
-
Well they took the time to write a 75 page report.........
Really? In your opinion, they wrote only 28 pages in the report.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=7937.msg385533#msg385533
-
Really? In your opinion, they wrote only 27 pages in the report.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=7937.msg385533#msg385533
The bulk of it seemed like a copy and paste.
-
The bulk of it seemed like a copy and paste.
A bit like here then..... @)(++(*
-
Cites are often required. This invokes Copying and Pasting.
-
I dont think the SC judgeemnt changed anything........imo it was a very clumsy statement.
I still maintain taht the absence of evidence is evidence of innocence ...my opinion ...and i think it will be interesting to see the ECHR view on the ruling......if...as Im sure it will be...the case is accepted
Thus, it does not appear acceptable to consider that the alluded dispatch, based on the insufficiency of evidence, should be treated as evidence of innocence.
-
I dont think the SC judgeemnt changed anything........imo it was a very clumsy statement.
I still maintain taht the absence of evidence is evidence of innocence ...my opinion ...and i think it will be interesting to see the ECHR view on the ruling......if...as Im sure it will be...the case is accepted
Thus, it does not appear acceptable to consider that the alluded dispatch, based on the insufficiency of evidence, should be treated as evidence of innocence.
Can it be said unequivocally that an application has been made to the ECtHR ?
You know boring stuff like court record numbers and so on rather than a cut and paste from "Ye Olde Currante Bunne"?
-
Can it be said unequivocally that an application has been made to the ECtHR ?
You know boring stuff like court record numbers and so on rather than a cut and paste from "Ye Olde Currante Bunne"?
I've not been able to find anything - not that that means much, my search skills being far below par compared with some on here.
-
Can it be said unequivocally that an application has been made to the ECtHR ?
You know boring stuff like court record numbers and so on rather than a cut and paste from "Ye Olde Currante Bunne"?
we have this...
Family spokesman Clarence Mitchell told MailOnline: 'I can confirm that Kate and Gerry McCann’s Portuguese lawyers lodged an appeal application in the Amaral case with the European Court of Human Rights in July of this year.
'The Court acknowledged the application in August and its admissibility is now being examined. Kate and Gerry will not be commenting on any aspect whatsoever as it remains entirely a matter for their Portuguese lawyers.'
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4867778/Madeleine-McCann-s-parents-appeal-European-Court.html#ixzz50EjACXug
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook...
perhaps its all lies
-
we have this...
Family spokesman Clarence Mitchell told MailOnline: 'I can confirm that Kate and Gerry McCann’s Portuguese lawyers lodged an appeal application in the Amaral case with the European Court of Human Rights in July of this year.
'The Court acknowledged the application in August and its admissibility is now being examined. Kate and Gerry will not be commenting on any aspect whatsoever as it remains entirely a matter for their Portuguese lawyers.'
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4867778/Madeleine-McCann-s-parents-appeal-European-Court.html#ixzz50EjACXug
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook...
perhaps its all lies
Until it arrives in a publically accessible ECHR system we won’t know.
-
we have this...
Family spokesman Clarence Mitchell told MailOnline: 'I can confirm that Kate and Gerry McCann’s Portuguese lawyers lodged an appeal application in the Amaral case with the European Court of Human Rights in July of this year.
'The Court acknowledged the application in August and its admissibility is now being examined. Kate and Gerry will not be commenting on any aspect whatsoever as it remains entirely a matter for their Portuguese lawyers.'
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4867778/Madeleine-McCann-s-parents-appeal-European-Court.html#ixzz50EjACXug
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook...
perhaps its all lies
It would be a foolish man who went in to bat on the strength of that.
-
Until it arrives in a publically accessible ECHR system we won’t know.
we have a good idea ...imo
-
It would be a foolish man who went in to bat on the strength of that.
Too much detail there for it not to be true...imo
-
Too much detail there for it not to be true...imo
There is no detail there.
-
There is no detail there.
is that a fact or your opinion...you just cannot see it...imo....I would have made a good detective...imo
imo there is detail that shows its a quote from clarence
-
we have this...
Family spokesman Clarence Mitchell told MailOnline: 'I can confirm that Kate and Gerry McCann’s Portuguese lawyers lodged an appeal application in the Amaral case with the European Court of Human Rights in July of this year.
'The Court acknowledged the application in August and its admissibility is now being examined. Kate and Gerry will not be commenting on any aspect whatsoever as it remains entirely a matter for their Portuguese lawyers.'
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4867778/Madeleine-McCann-s-parents-appeal-European-Court.html#ixzz50EjACXug
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook...
perhaps its all lies
The Supreme Court decision cannot be appealed. It stands.
Perhaps Clarence needs to understand that.
-
The Supreme Court decision cannot be appealed. It stands.
Perhaps Clarence needs to understand that.
im sure he understands
-
im sure he understands
I’m sure he knows exactly what he is doing.
-
I’m sure he knows exactly what he is doing.
I agree
-
I’m sure he knows exactly what he is doing.
Indeed.
We know his operating procedure from previous examples.
He also knows he can't appeal the Supreme Court Judgement. So why does the Mail imply otherwise.
$65*
-
Until it arrives in a publically accessible ECHR system we won’t know.
Strange that there seems no mention of it on the ECHR site. Even if it had gone straight to the rubbish bin, you would have expected some reference to its receipt.
-
Strange that there seems no mention of it on the ECHR site. Even if it had gone straight to the rubbish bin, you would have expected some reference to its receipt.
That bin is probably overflowing.
-
Case done and dusted.
Mccanns lost.
Time to get over it.
getting over it applies to the mccans and it appears they are taking the case to europe...I wish them every success
-
You are mistaken if you think the case affects me and that has nothing to do with what angelo has claimed...the SC did NOT rule on the mccanns innocence as angelo seeems to think
You are commenting on the case.
Now who was it who said, 'Amaral is toast ?
As to the judgement, there for anyone to read.
-
You are commenting on the case.
Now who was it who said, 'Amaral is toast ?
As to the judgement, there for anyone to read.
As i have said many times I correctly predicted amaral was toast re the first hearing
I then correctly predicted amaral might win the second
I didnt comment on the third
I believe teh mccanns have applied to the ECHR...im confident their case will be accepted and Im confdent they will be successful
The judgement is their to read but from the posts some have not read it... I have read it and dont recall the SC saying the mccanns were not innocent...have you read it
-
A flawed judgement, overuled.
Amaral won. A matter of fact.
It is the Mccanns who were toast in the Portuguese Court, and they lost badly.
Still waiting to hear when they will pay up.
Their accounts are due by The end of the month.
Courtesy of Companies House.
A useful source of information to say the least.
-
A flawed judgement, overuled.
Amaral won. A matter of fact.
It is the Mccanns who were toast in the Portuguese Court, and they lost badly.
Still waiting to hear when they will pay up.
Their accounts are due by The end of the month.
Courtesy of Companies House.
A useful source of information to say the least.
a flawed judgement overuled..that is your opinion...imo it was correct...the ECHR will decide who is correct...they may well decide the SC judgement was flawed
-
As i have said many times I correctly predicted amaral was toast re the first hearing
I then correctly predicted amaral might win the second
I didnt comment on the third
I believe teh mccanns have applied to the ECHR...im confident their case will be accepted and Im confdent they will be successful
The judgement is their to read but from the posts some have not read it... I have read it and dont recall the SC saying the mccanns were not innocent...have you read it
The Portuguese Supreme Court were very clear in what they stated after considering the McCann's appeal against the very detailed decision by the Court of Appeal. They didn't have to make the prouncement they did but chose to do so given what the McCanns had earlier claimed. The Supreme Court stated that the McCanns had not proven their innocence, they did not state they weren't innocent.
As has been pointed out on numerous occasions, the ECHR cannot overturn a national court's decision. The McCann's lost their defamation action against Goncalo Amaral and Others and that is the end of it.
-
The Portuguese Supreme Court were very clear in what they stated after considering the McCann's appeal against the very detailed decision by the Court of Appeal. They didn't have to make the prouncement they did but chose to do so given what the McCanns had earlier claimed. The Supreme Court stated that the McCanns had not proven their innocence, they did not state they weren't innocent.
You are correct john...the SC pronounced the mcCanns had not proved their innocence...that is a fact...The SC ruling does not imply that the SC were questioning the mccanns innocence as some seem to think...as we know the fact is that it can be basically impossible to prove innocence...as Barry george has discovered
-
The Portuguese Supreme Court were very clear in what they stated after considering the McCann's appeal against the very detailed decision by the Court of Appeal. They didn't have to make the prouncement they did but chose to do so given what the McCanns had earlier claimed. The Supreme Court stated that the McCanns had not proven their innocence, they did not state they weren't innocent.
As has been pointed out on numerous occasions, the ECHR cannot overturn a national court's decision. The McCann's lost their defamation action against Goncalo Amaral and Others and that is the end of it.
The ECHR can rule that the judgement was flawed and incorrect...as they have done on many occasions...
-
a flawed judgement overuled..that is your opinion...imo it was correct...the ECHR will decide who is correct...they may well decide the SC judgement was flawed
That judgement is done and dusted.
It cannot be overturned.
As is also known, many governments ignore E.C.H. R. rulings.
So effectively, it is a toothless appendage with b....r all clout in the real world.
Meanwhile, the Mccanns have to pay up.
-
That judgement is done and dusted.
It cannot be overturned.
As is also known, many governments ignore E.C.H. R. rulings.
So effectively, it is a toothless appendage with b....r all clout in the real world.
Meanwhile, the Mccanns have to pay up.
as I have pointed out the ECHR can rule the SC judgeemnt was flawed and incorrect
It can also award damages...so it is not toothless
-
The ECHR can rule that the judgement was flawed and incorrect...as they have done on many occasions...
Cites would be useful,what is the outcome after these findings?
-
Cites would be useful,what is the outcome after these findings?
The ECHR have ruled judgements by many courts ..including portugal...as being incorrect
-
as I have pointed out the ECHR can rule the SC judgeemnt was flawed and incorrect
So when was the Mccanns case accepted.
As I said , many governments ignore the rulings.
...and if the Mccanns don't pay up, as I fully expect, they will be laughed out of the E.C.H.R.
Namely, NIL POINTS.
-
The ECHR have ruled judgements by many courts ..including portugal...as being incorrect
Cites please.
-
Cites please.
Are you raelly suggesting tht no one has ever been successful at the ECHR...taht is quite absurd
-
as I have pointed out the ECHR can rule the SC judgeemnt was flawed and incorrect
It can also award damages...so it is not toothless
Many countries ignore the rulings.
I have cited evidence before on that.
Easily found.
-
the UK govt are currently being forced to look at votes for prisoners after an ECHR ruling brought by an axe murderer...how ironic
-
Many countries ignore the rulings.
I have cited evidence before on that.
Easily found.
Doesnt matter if portugal ignore the ruling ...a ruling would show that the mccans were unfairly treated by the portuguese justice system
-
Are you raelly suggesting tht no one has ever been successful at the ECHR...taht is quite absurd
I mistakenly thought that cites should be provided to back up assertions,my bad.Still its a useful reference point in future.
-
I mistakenly thought that cites should be provided to back up assertions,my bad.Still its a useful reference point in future.
Ive just provided one...and again...please answer the question...do you really think no one has been successful in Euorope...the SC cited a case ..read the report...the mcdonalds case...and many more
-
Doesnt matter if portugal ignore the ruling ...a ruling would show that the mccans were unfairly treated by the portuguese justice system
They haven't been treated unfairly. They took Amaral and the other defendents to court.
They were poorly prepared and lost.
Some of the witness statements on their behalf, which were reported, were IMO, laughable.
-
I mistakenly thought that cites should be provided to back up assertions,my bad.Still its a useful reference point in future.
with respect its a bit like me posting the popes a catholic and you asking for a cite
-
Ive just provided one...and again...please answer the question...do you really think no one has been successful in Euorope...the SC cited a case ..read the report...the mcdonalds case...and many more
You provided nothing.
-
I dont have messages I have the facts. Doesnt matter if portugal ignore the ruling ...a ruling would show that the mccans were unfairly treated by the portuguese justice system
I don't believe they were.
-
They haven't been treated unfairly. They took Amaral and the other defendents to court.
They were poorly prepared and lost.
Some of the witness statements on their behalf, which were reported, were IMO, laughable.
your post is opinion as fact ...and reported...It is my opinion they ahve been traeted unfairly...The ECHR will hopefully decide
-
your post is opinion as fact ...and reported...It is my opinion they ahve been traeted unfairly...The ECHR will hopefully decide
When was the case accepted?
Just a minor hurdle to overcome, followed by several years waiting for a hearing.
-
I don't believe they were.
Thats your opinion john as you have made clear...I think they were.. I think they were defamed...its up to the ECHR to decide...if as I beleive an application ghas been made
-
your post is opinion as fact ...and reported...It is my opinion they ahve been traeted unfairly...The ECHR will hopefully decide
Out of curiousity, how in your opinion were they unfairly treated? Always remembering that Leicestershire Police were also involved.
The ECHR will not want to involve themselves in what is effectively a private spate or quarrel between the McCanns and Goncalo Amaral.
-
When was the case accepted?
Just a minor hurdle to overcome, followed by several years waiting for a hearing.
You need to read my posts as I have already addressed this point
-
Out of curiousity, how in your opinion were they unfairly treated? Always remembering that Leicestershire Police were also involved.
I would say they have clearly been defamed and their right to a good name hase been ignored
The Sc judgement has to balance the right to free speech against the right to a good name ..thay got it wrong imo...
and IMO that will be the basis of the case
-
I would say they have clearly been defamed and their right to a good name hase been ignored
The Sc judgement has to balance the right to free speech against the right to a good name ..thay got it wrong imo...
and IMO that will be the basis of the case
They have quoted their grievances and views for years, in the court and in the press.
They lost.
-
You provided nothing.
i have provided several cases where the SC disagreed with the ruling by the countries SC
-
They have quoted their grievances and views for years, in the court and in the press.
They lost.
and now they have...as i understand ...appealed to the ECHR...where they may well win
-
I would say they have clearly been defamed and their right to a good name hase been ignored
The Sc judgement has to balance the right to free speech against the right to a good name ..thay got it wrong imo...
and IMO that will be the basis of the case
You appear to be confusing two separate issues. The official investigation is a separate issue to the allegation that Amaral defamed them in his book.
Being treated fairly has nothing to do with Amaral.
-
I dont have messages I have the facts. Doesnt matter if portugal ignore the ruling ...a ruling would show that the mccans were unfairly treated by the portuguese justice system
Which they have obsessively claimed since 3rd May 2007, but have been unable to prove. If the ECHR declines their request their allegations will remain simply a matter of opinion.
-
Out of curiousity, how in your opinion were they unfairly treated? Always remembering that Leicestershire Police were also involved.
The ECHR will not want to involve themselves in what is effectively a private spate or quarrel between the McCanns and Goncalo Amaral.
The ECHR will have agreat respect for EU law...and will want to rule if they think it has been ignored by a SC..imo
-
Which they have obsessively claimed since 3rd May 2007, but have been unable to prove. If the ECHR declines their request their allegations will remain simply a matter of opinion.
They have been unable to prove in portugal..teh ECHR may be totally different...imo the SC ruling was perverse
-
You appear to be confusing two separate issues. The official investigation is a separate issue to the allegation that Amaral defamed them in his book.
Being treated fairly has nothing to do with Amaral.
The case in the ECHR is nothing to do with amaral...the contention will be they have been unfairly treated by the SC..imo...Im confusing nothing
-
The ECHR will have agreat respect for EU law...and will want to rule if they think it has been ignored by a SC..imo
I guarantee that if the EHCR accept the case against Portugal they will want to examine Madeleine's human rights and how they were violated.
-
I guarantee that if the EHCR accept the case against Portugal they will want to examine Madeleine's human rights and how they were violated.
IMO ..they will absolutely not...taht is not the way courts work.. imo
-
The case in the ECHR is nothing to do with amaral...the contention will be they have been unfairly treated by the SC..imo...Im confusing nothing
Which was my point initially, the defamation case is over.
-
IMO ..they will absolutely not...taht is not the way courts work.. imo
Really, you think they are going to ignore Madeleine?
-
Really, you think they are going to ignore Madeleine?
I think they will deal with the point of law in question...nothing more..that is what courts do
I have knowlwdge of a case where someone was found guilty of defrauding a public body......the person in a seperate case sued the same body for breach of contract...he came to court in handcuffs...the judge ruled his fraud case had no bearing on the breach of contract and he won the case
-
Which was my point initially, the defamation case is over.
it isnt over in europe...but it is now a case against the SC...not amaral
-
it isnt over in europe...but it is now a case against the SC...not amaral
What case?
It hasn't been accepted.
-
What case?
It hasn't been accepted.
Again....... I have already addressed this point in a previous post this evening...please read back
-
Again....... I have already addressed this point in a previous post
Irrelevant.
It has to be accepted.
-
Irrelevant.
It has to be accepted.
As i have already stated I accept it has to be accepted but I have read the acceptance criteria,,,...have you...and see no reason why it will not be accepted...on what basis do you think it wont be acccepted...I have a feeling you have not looked at the criteria and do not have a valid opinion
-
As i have already stated I accept it has to be accepted but I have read the acceptance criteria,,,...have you...and see no reason why it will not be accepted...on what basis do you think it wont be acccepted...I have a feeling you have not looked at the criteria and do not have a valid opinion
I have.
Their human rights have not been breached and they were not treated unfairly by the supreme Court.
They are on a hiding to nothing, which in my opinion is what they so fully deserve.
-
I have.
Their human rights have not been breached and they were not treated unfairly by the supreme Court.
They are on a hiding to nothing, which in my opinion is what they so fully deserve.
Your post is opinion as fact and is against forum rules...It is not up to you to rule on human rights issues...you are not a judge ,... Im happy to abide by the rules but they should be enforced fairly...your post is reported as opinion posted as fact
-
I have.
Their human rights have not been breached and they were not treated unfairly by the supreme Court.
They are on a hiding to nothing, which in my opinion is what they so fully deserve.
so on what basis will their application not be accepted
" their human rights have not been affected" ...is not a basis for refusal
-
Your post is opinion as fact and is against forum rules...It is not up to you to rule on human rights issues...you are not a judge
I said , in my opinion, in the post.
You are also implying you know the law.
That is your opinion, nothing more.
-
I said , in my opinion, in the post.
You are also implying you know the law.
That is your opinion, nothing more.
I do know the acceptance criteria...its online....so on what basis will their application be refused
-
It would be interesting to see examples of successful appeals to the ECHR by people instigating legal actions and failing.
-
I said , in my opinion, in the post.
You are also implying you know the law.
That is your opinion, nothing more.
your post..
I have.
Their human rights have not been breached and they were not treated unfairly by the supreme Court.
They are on a hiding to nothing, which in my opinion is what they so fully deserve.
not an imo in sight
-
I do know the acceptance criteria...its online....so on what basis will their application be refused
I think the ECHR will look at the careful consideration the Judgement took of European Human Rights legislation and chuck the request out.
-
your post..
I have.
Their human rights have not been breached and they were not treated unfairly by the supreme Court.
They are on a hiding to nothing, which in my opinion is what they so fully deserve.
not an imo in sight
Yes there is?
-
I think the ECHR will look at the careful consideration the Judgement took of European Human Rights legislation and chuck the request out.
That is not a basis to refuse acceptance of the case...have you read the criteria before commenting...it would apear not..imo
-
Yes there is?
could you point out where it is
I have.
Their human rights have not been breached and they were not treated unfairly by the supreme Court.
They are on a hiding to nothing, which in my opinion is what they so fully deserve.
-
so on what basis will their application not be accepted
" their human rights have not been affected" ...is not a basis for refusal
As they have allegedly applied to the European Court of Human Rights the criteria must be that their human rights were breached. Anything else is irrelevant.
-
could you point out where it is
I have.
Their human rights have not been breached and they were not treated unfairly by the supreme Court.
They are on a hiding to nothing, which in my opinion is what they so fully deserve.
-
That is not a basis to refuse acceptance of the case...have you read the criteria before commenting...it would apear not..imo
They would need to demonstrate that their Human Rights had not been considered.
-
that line does not seem to apply to the first sentence...so as long as stephen is saying their human rights have not been breached in his opinion...thats fine
-
They would need to demonstrate that their Human Rights had not been considered.
no they would not...that is for the ECHR to decide...you need to read the acceptance criteria..they need to show their human rights MAY have been not considered
-
that line does not seem to apply to the first sentence...so as long as stephen is saying their human rights have not been breached in his opinion...thats fine
So there was an IMO in sight.
-
So there was an IMO in sight.
not for the inititial statement no...stephen can confirm if he thinks its fact or merely opinion
-
not for the inititial statement no...stephen can confirm if he thinks its fact or merely opinion
Not what you said.
-
no they would not...that is for the ECHR to decide...you need to read the acceptance criteria..they need to show their human rights MAY have been not considered
I assume you read the judgement and the references to the various parts of the act?
-
I assume you read the judgement and the references to the various parts of the act?
I have read the acceptance criteria...so first... on what basis would the case not be accepted.
-
I have read the acceptance criteria...so first... on what basis would the case not be accepted.
Significant Damage.
-
I assume you read the judgement and the references to the various parts of the act?
yes
-
Significant Damage.
there has been significant damage to their reputation
-
I have read the acceptance criteria...so first... on what basis would the case not be accepted.
“manifestly ill-founded”
-
there has been significant damage to their reputation
But the supporters tell us that there are only a handful of sceptics, no one believes the book and the McCanns have lots of support. Difficult to square that with significant damage.
-
“manifestly ill-founded”
if thats what you think lets wait and see...have you looked at the cases that have been judged as such....lets wait and see who is the fool and who is the wise man... Im more than happy for this to be decided based on this
-
But the supporters tell us that there are only a handful of sceptics, no one believes the book and the McCanns have lots of support. Difficult to square that with significant damage.
its not...amaral accuses criminal action and libel per se ...as with alice im happy to accept the challenge ...you say it wont be accepted and I say it will...lets see who is the fool and who is the wise man
-
if thats what you think lets wait and see...have you looked at the cases that have been judged as such....lets wait and see who is the fool and who is the wise man... Im more than happy for this to be decided based on this
Unless you have had sight of the actual application you are in no position to make an informed comment on the topic.
So shoot us a link to the application, Ace.
-
Unless you have had sight of the actual application you are in no position to make an informed comment on the topic.
So shoot us a link to the application, Ace.
im giving my opinion ..and you yours...lets see who is right... the case wiil be accepted 100% imo
-
its not...amaral accuses criminal action and libel per se ...as with alice im happy to accept the challenge ...you say it wont be accepted and I say it will...lets see who is the fool and who is the wise man
Remind us what happened when the case went to court in Portugal.
-
im giving my opinion ..and you yours...lets see who is right... the case wiil be accepted 100% imo
OK.
On what is your opinion based ?
-
Remind us what happened when the case went to court in Portugal.
Its nothing to do with portugal now
-
OK.
On what is your opinion based ?
On reading the acceptance criteria
-
Its nothing to do with portugal now
It's McCann v The State of Portugal now.
I would say that is alot to do with Portugal.
-
On reading the acceptance criteria
Unless you have read the application knowing what the acceptance criteria are will not allow you to form a well judged opinion.
What you are saying effectively is:
"In my opinion "it" will be accepted but I don't know what the "it" is"
-
its not...amaral accuses criminal action and libel per se ...as with alice im happy to accept the challenge ...you say it wont be accepted and I say it will...lets see who is the fool and who is the wise man
I don’t really care if it’s accepted or not, IMO The PT Justice System was very careful to tie up all the lose ends and refer back to the Convention on Human Rights. The judgement was a balancing of rights, a judgement not a case of right or wrong. Not something the ECHR will be able to add to.
-
I don’t really care if it’s accepted or not, IMO The PT Justice System was very careful to tie up all the lose ends and refer back to the Convention on Human Rights. The judgement was a balancing of rights, a judgement not a case of right or wrong. Not something the ECHR will be able to add to.
The SC judgement was indeed a balancing act..we await to see if their judgement complied with European law..imo it didn't
-
im giving my opinion ..and you yours...lets see who is right... the case wiil be accepted 100% imo
I wasn't giving an opinion.
You on the other hand appear to be mixing up two entirely different concepts.
You decide which one of the two you wish debate then I will join in ?{)(**
-
The OP carries a cite which states that Portuguese lawyers acting for the McCanns lodged an appeal with the ECHR in July 2017.
Let's argue about it on this thread and not all over the ship as at present. I think it is called discipline and ... running a tight ship.
-
The OP carries a cite which states that Portuguese lawyers acting for the McCanns lodged an appeal with the ECHR in July 2017.
Let's argue about it on this thread and not all over the ship as at present. I think it is called discipline and ... running a tight ship.
Which occurred after , the newspapers stated, ACCORDING TO A SOURCE, they wouldn't be appealing to the E.C.H.R.
So which one is true.
...and before anyone says it was Clarence Mitchell, I take anything from him with the proverbial pinch of salt.
Remembering now, it is nothing to do with Amaral and the other parties involved in the court case, that is done and dusted.
Yup.
-
Which occurred after , the newspapers stated, ACCORDING TO A SOURCE, they wouldn't be appealing to the E.C.H.R.
So which one is true.
...and before anyone says it was Clarence Mitchell, I take anything from him with the proverbial pinch of salt.
Remembering now, it is nothing to do with Amaral and the other parties involved in the court case, that is done and dusted.
Yup.
as I have already said I believe it is true due to the detail given and a direct quote from clarence...its pointless arguing,,,...again we will just have to wait and see who is right
-
Which occurred after , the newspapers stated, ACCORDING TO A SOURCE, they wouldn't be appealing to the E.C.H.R.
So which one is true.
...and before anyone says it was Clarence Mitchell, I take anything from him with the proverbial pinch of salt.
Remembering now, it is nothing to do with Amaral and the other parties involved in the court case, that is done and dusted.
Yup.
if it goes ahead it will rule whether the SC judgemnet was correct to rule in amarals favour or not correct...I agree compensation would be small and portugal does not have to enforce the judgement...it would look bad for portugals courts if the ECHR found in the mccanns favour ...imo
-
if it goes ahead it will rule whether the SC judgemnet was correct to rule in amarals favour or not correct...I agree compensation would be small and portugal does not have to enforce the judgement...it would look bad for portugals courts if the ECHR found in the mccanns favour ...imo
In whose eye's.You supposedly quoted a case where the uk lost in the off topic thread,I see no embarrassment in any ones eye.
-
as I have already said I believe it is true due to the detail given and a direct quote from clarence...its pointless arguing,,,...again we will just have to wait and see who is right
The head of the Portuguese police federation didn't share the same sentiments about Mitchell back in 2008.
-
The head of the Portuguese police federation didn't share the same sentiments about Mitchell back in 2008.
I can't say I'm surprised by that.
-
In whose eye's.You supposedly quoted a case where the uk lost in the off topic thread,I see no embarrassment in any ones eye.
I dont think anyone sympathises with an axe murderer claiming prisoners should have the right to vote...prhaps some do...I think..imo...it would be a serious embarrassment for portugal if thier courts were found to have supported a policeman with a criminal conviction and denied the mccanns their fair judgement
-
I dont think anyone sympathises with an axe murderer claiming prisoners should have the right to vote...prhaps some do...I think..imo...it would be a serious embarrasssmnet for portugal if thier courts were found to have supported a policeman with a criminal conviction and denied the mccanns their fair judgement
The Mccanns had their chance AND FAILED MISERABLY.
They were toast and still are, deservedly so.
Naturally, I.M.O.
-
The Mccanns had their chance AND FAILED MISERABLY.
They were toast and still are, deservedly so.
Naturally, I.M.O.
none of that affects the possible case in europe...could be very interesting
-
if it goes ahead it will rule whether the SC judgemnet was correct to rule in amarals favour or not correct...I agree compensation would be small and portugal does not have to enforce the judgement...it would look bad for portugals courts if the ECHR found in the mccanns favour ...imo
It will consider and rule on whether the Portuguese Judiciary breached any of the McCann's human rights. I think they were very careful to ensure they avoided doing that.
-
It will consider and rule on whether the Portuguese Judiciary breached any of the McCann's human rights. I think they were very careful to ensure they avoided doing that.
Exactly.
The mccanns thought they had Amaral by the Brass Monkey's.
How wrong they were.
They had their chance and blew it.
-
I dont think anyone sympathises with an axe murderer claiming prisoners should have the right to vote...prhaps some do...I think..imo...it would be a serious embarrassment for portugal if thier courts were found to have supported a policeman with a criminal conviction and denied the mccanns their fair judgement
The courts have supported Mr Amaral,or rather an individual rights,it makes no odds what previous he had,but its not surprising it rears its head,par for the course.
Slightly off topic but in relation to the denigration of Mr Amaral.
Rowley tells us that he is happy with how the first investigation was run and the subsequent investigation of the parents leaving him with no wish to reinterview them.
Redwood tells us that he believes J Tanner, with her sighting being revealed as an innocent chap carrying his child homeward.
Redwood also tells us that he believes the Smiths and launched an appeal releasing e-fits of their sighting.
Who was head or coordinator at the time,why one Mr Amaral,
How many times after he was removed were any of the above or even others interviewed again during the first investigation in Portugal?
-
The one clear thing, regardless of what poster's think of them not being suspects.
They were not cleared. as some think they were.
-
I dont think anyone sympathises with an axe murderer claiming prisoners should have the right to vote...prhaps some do...I think..imo...it would be a serious embarrassment for portugal if thier courts were found to have supported a policeman with a criminal conviction and denied the mccanns their fair judgement
The McCann's Application to the ECHR has nothing to do with Amaral, it is an action against the State of Portugal for a claimed breach of their human rights. Pretty hypocritical in my view given what happened to their three-year-old child wouldn't you say? How embarrassing!!
-
The one clear thing, regardless of what poster's think of them not being suspects.
They were not cleared. as some think they were.
How could they ever be when Kate McCann's answered "no comment" when questioned as an official suspect in relation to her daughter's disappearance. Unbelievable!!
-
The McCann's Application to the ECHR has nothing to do with Amaral, it is an action against the State of Portugal for a claimed breach of their human rights. Pretty hypocritical in my view given what happened to their three-year-old child wouldn't you say? How embarrassing!!
Precisely Angelo.
The hypocrisy of the Mccanns trying to go to the E.C.H.R. is beyond description.
What happened to Madeleine's right to be taken care of and protected ???
-
The McCann's Application to the ECHR has nothing to do with Amaral, it is an action against the State of Portugal for a claimed breach of their human rights. Pretty hypocritical in my view given what happened to their three-year-old child wouldn't you say? How embarrassing!!
the ECHR may well rule that amaral libelled the mccanns...so from that ppoint it is to do with amaral...there can be no enforcement against amaral . I dont think its embarrassing what happened to maddie I think its tragic...I beleive she was abducted and therefore blame the abductor not her parents
-
They themselves have caused, all there grief.
They hounded G A.
They left their children.
They expect everyone to be blamed, but themselves IMO.
European Court Of Human Rights, were was maddie's to be protected by them.
-
The one clear thing, regardless of what poster's think of them not being suspects.
They were not cleared. as some think they were.
As they were not charged I dont see how they could be cleared.....I do think there is alot of evidence now to show they had no criminal involvement in the disappearance
-
Precisely Angelo.
The hypocrisy of the Mccanns trying to go to the E.C.H.R. is beyond description.
What happened to Madeleine's right to be taken care of and protected ???
there is no hypocrisy imo.....
-
Amaral is out of the picture.
I dont think he is
-
the ECHR may well rule that amaral libelled the mccanns...so from that ppoint it is to do with amaral...there can be no enforcement against amaral . I dont think its embarrassing what happened to maddie I think its tragic...I beleive she was abducted and therefore blame the abductor not her parents
Amaral is out of The picture.
-
Amaral is out of The picture.
I dont think he is......why do you think he has gone so quiet
-
the ECHR may well rule that amaral libelled the mccanns...so from that ppoint it is to do with amaral...there can be no enforcement against amaral . I dont think its embarrassing what happened to maddie I think its tragic...I beleive she was abducted and therefore blame the abductor not her parents
That's not the function of the European Court. The clue is in the name ECHR.
-
That's not the function of the European Court. The clue is in the name ECHR.
the ECHR can rule that the mccanns were libelled by amaral
-
the ECHR can rule that the mccanns were libelled by amaral
No they can't.
-
I dont think he is......why do you think he has gone so quiet
He is doing the logical thing.
Waiting for the Mccanns to pay up, I would think.
Not that they will, and I hope they don't, as they will deserve what they get.
-
No they can't.
Of course they can...they can rule that the SC have misinterpreted EU law and amaral has libelled the mccanns ...they have no enforcement against amaral but against the portuguese state
-
Of course they can...they can rule that the SC have misinterpreted EU law and amaral has libelled the mccanns ...they have no enforcement against amaral but against the portuguese state
If the mccanns are successful in europe then the have a ruling taht amarals claims infringe their right to a good name,...libel.. If amaral repeats any claims they can then go back to the portuguese court with this clear ruling.
The SC were at pains to comply with EU law...are they suddenly going to ignore it in a new case...not imo
-
Of course they can...they can rule that the SC have misinterpreted EU law and amaral has libelled the mccanns ...they have no enforcement against amaral but against the portuguese state
They do not have enforcement powers against any state.
That has been explained to you already.
-
They do not have enforcement powers.
That has been explained to you already.
i think you need to read my post again...and you will see I dont need any explanation....
..they have no enforcement against amaral but against the portuguese state
-
I dont think he is......why do you think he has gone so quiet
Because he is a reserved man.
He hasn't a reputation to protect.
-
Because he is a reserved man.
He hasn't a reputation to protect.
I would say he has held up extremely well to the barrage of the MSM in this country, the McCann's, and their 'allies'.
-
I would say he has held up extremely well to the barrage of the MSM in this country, the McCann's, and their 'allies'.
One thing I dislike is a dishonest policeman..it undermines the whole justice sysyem..imo...be that in any countrty
-
some would say he has damaged his own reputaion...
I wouldn't think that was a problem for him.
Especially the amount raised for him, he has a lot of respect IMO.
-
i think you need to read my post again...and you will see I dont need any explanation....
..they have no enforcement against amaral but against the portuguese state
THEY CANNOT ENFORCE ANY DECISION AGAINST A COUNTRY.
Even the Express can get some things right. 8)-)))
https://www.express.co.uk/news/world/856415/European-Court-of-Human-Rights-ECHR-rulings-Council-of-Europe-Thorbjorn-Jagland
and
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/oct/03/conservatives-ignore-european-court-human-rights-rulings
-
I wouldn't think that was a problem for him.
Especially the amount raised for him, he has a lot of respect IMO.
i think he has little respect..imo
-
One gets the sense of feeling that acceptance or not of the case going to the ECHR is pending.
-
THEY CANNOT ENFORCE ANY DECISION AGAINST A COUNTRY.
Even the Express can get some things right. 8)-)))
https://www.express.co.uk/news/world/856415/European-Court-of-Human-Rights-ECHR-rulings-Council-of-Europe-Thorbjorn-Jagland
and
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/oct/03/conservatives-ignore-european-court-human-rights-rulings
the ECHR cn order the portuguese govt to pay the mccanns compensation...the govt dont have to but it would be very bad press for portugal if they refused..imo
-
i think he has little respect..imo
You mean from the mccanns and their small band of supporters ?
Hardly surprising.
-
You mean from the mccanns and their small band of supporters ?
Hardly surprising.
You know you've made in it the world when that happens.
-
i think he has little respect..imo
Well not by the people who helped him win the case, against the mccanns.
-
One gets the sense of feeling that acceptance or not of the case going to the ECHR is pending.
as i have said having looked at the acceptance criteria i cannot see any reason it not being accepted
-
Well not by the people who helped him win the case, against the mccanns.
'In my opinion' a group who by judging from their comments did not understand the evidence
Post amended with CAVEAT.
-
as i have said having looked at the acceptance criteria i cannot see any reason it not being accepted
Does any one know if the Portuguese get to put their point of view across before such a decision to proceed is taken,if it gets that far.
-
the ECHR cn order the portuguese govt to pay the mccanns compensation...the govt dont have to but it would be very bad press for portugal if they refused..imo
Compensation for what ?
Leaving their children unattended and undefended, whilst they socialized ?
Can you remind me of what is the maximum level of compensation awarded by the E.C.H.R. and with a CITE ?
-
a group who by judging from their comments did not understand the evidence
IYO
-
Of course they can...they can rule that the SC have misinterpreted EU law and amaral has libelled the mccanns ...they have no enforcement against amaral but against the portuguese state
1) Which bit of EU law do you think the SC misinterpreted?
2) Was the bit of Portuguese law they relied on in direct conflict with EU law ? Reference numbers will do.
3) If there was no direct conflict between the laws then the ECJ have no powers to intervene.
-
If the mccanns are successful in europe then the have a ruling taht amarals claims infringe their right to a good name,...libel.. If amaral repeats any claims they can then go back to the portuguese court with this clear ruling.
The SC were at pains to comply with EU law...are they suddenly going to ignore it in a new case...not imo
How many times must you be told, the ECHR has no interest in disputes between individuals, they are only concerned with States who breach human rights.
-
How many times must you be told, the ECHR has no interest in disputes between individuals, they are only concerned with States who breach human rights.
if you read my posts you will see I have a full understang of the case...probably more than most others on the forum...imo...its mccanns vs portugal
-
the ECHR cn order the portuguese govt to pay the mccanns compensation...the govt dont have to but it would be very bad press for portugal if they refused..imo
Compensation for being shit parents? @)(++(*
Not many people go abroad with three children and come back with two due entirely to their own selfishness and lack of common sense where child security is concerned.
-
1) Which bit of EU law do you think the SC misinterpreted?
2) Was the bit of Portuguese law they relied on in direct conflict with EU law ? Reference numbers will do.
3) If there was no direct conflict between the laws then the ECJ have no powers to intervene.
the sc have to strike a balance between freedom of expression and right to a good name...they explain this in the judgement if you read it....so their ruling is their opinion of where the balance lies....thats what i believe the mccanns can challenge
-
Compensation for being shit parents? @)(++(*
Not many people go abroad with three children and come back with two.
that wont be part of the consideraion in the ECHR..imo
-
the sc have to strike a balance between freedom of expression and right to a good name...they explain this in the judgement if you read it....so their ruling is their opinion of where the balance lies....thats what i believe the mccanns can challenge
Are you intending to advise the E.C.H.R. on implementing your opinion ? 8)--))
-
that wont be part of the consideraion in the ECHR..imo
These judges can read too you know, they will be very aware of what went on in Portugal.
-
the sc have to strike a balance between freedom of expression and right to a good name...they explain this in the judgement if you read it....so their ruling is their opinion of where the balance lies....thats what i believe the mccanns can challenge
Why should the mccanns, have a right to a good name.
-
Does any one know if the Portuguese get to put their point of view across before such a decision to proceed is taken,if it gets that far.
No,. It is entirely at the discretion of the Court.
-
These judges can read too you know, they will be very aware of what went on in Portugal.
the judges will be looking at points of law...thats what they will deal with..
-
Why should the mccanns, have a right to a good name.
because the do have under european law
-
the judges will be looking at points of law...thats what they will deal with..
Then qualify your statement with those points of law with appropriate cites.
-
Then qualify your statement with those points of law with appropriate cites.
I believe it comes under article 10
-
I believe it comes under article 10
Then quote ARTICLE 10 directly.
-
Of course they can...they can rule that the SC have misinterpreted EU law and amaral has libelled the mccanns ...they have no enforcement against amaral but against the portuguese state
Nothing to do with the SC either. This case if submitted/approved/judged is the McCanns vs Portugal. They will have to prove Portugal didn’t consider their human rights and it caused them significant damage. If either of those fail, the fat lady will sing.
-
Then quote ARTICLE 10 directly.
read this
https://www.lawteacher.net/free-law-essays/constitutional-law/law-of-defamation-and-human-rights-constitutional-law-essay.php
-
Nothing to do with the SC either. This case if submitted/approved/judged is the McCanns vs Portugal. They will have to prove Portugal didn’t consider their human rights and it caused them significant damage. If either of those fail, the fat lady will sing.
the ECHR will review the judgement made by the SC...so it is to do with the SC
-
because the do have under european law
And others have a right to freedom of speech.
-
Article 10 – Freedom of expression
1. Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. This article shall not prevent States from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises.
2. The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.
-
Nothing to do with the SC either. This case if submitted/approved/judged is the McCanns vs Portugal. They will have to prove Portugal didn’t consider their human rights and it caused them significant damage. If either of those fail, the fat lady will sing.
In my opinion it is merely a delaying tactic anyway and a cheap way to attract more publicity.
-
the ECHR will review the judgement made by the SC...so it is to do with the SC
That would be entirely to do with a defence from Portugal and not something specified in a complaint.
-
In my opinion it is merely a delaying tactic anyway and a cheap way to attract more publicity.
imo you are wrong
-
In my opinion it is merely a delaying tactic anyway and a cheap way to attract more publicity.
I concur.
-
its article 8 .....not 10...my mistake...Im doing a 100 other things at the moment
https://strasbourgobservers.com/2010/11/01/the-right-to-reputation-under-the-european-convention-on-human-rights/
-
I concur.
and again imo you are wrong
-
its article 8 .....not 10...my mistake...Im doing a 100 other things at the moment
You must have been thinking of the one that made them fail at the SC?
-
Article 8 – Right to respect for private and family life
1. Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence.
2. There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.
-
im off out now...its poointless continuing this argument...we will hopefully soon know if the case is to be accepted as Im sure it will...and may also then have more details of the actual complaint
-
Article 8 – Right to respect for private and family life
1. Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence.
2. There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.
https://strasbourgobservers.com/2010/11/01/the-right-to-reputation-under-the-european-convention-on-human-rights/
its article 8...you need to read the report
-
The relevant part in this case is "... except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime..."
In my view the McCanns haven't a leg to stand on.
-
im off out now...its poointless continuing this argument...we will hopefully soon know if the case is to be accepted as Im sure it will...and may also then have more details of the actual complaint
So soon? Just when I'm getting warmed up.
-
The relevant part in this case is "... except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime..."
In my view the McCanns haven't a leg to stand on.
thats article 10...not 8.....you are quoting the wrong article
ase of Pfeifer v. Austria, the right to protection of reputation was established as a Convention right under art. 8 ECHR. From Pfeifer: “a person’s right to protection of his or her reputation is encompassed by Article 8 as being part of the right to respect for private life”.
-
thats article 10...not 8.....you are quoting the wrong article
ase of Pfeifer v. Austria, the right to protection of reputation was established as a Convention right under art. 8 ECHR. From Pfeifer: “a person’s right to protection of his or her reputation is encompassed by Article 8 as being part of the right to respect for private life”.
Well, I suggest they don't try that, as they exposed their lives, including private lives, to the media.
-
Well, I suggest they don't try that, as they exposed their lives, including private lives, to the media.
exactly, most of which was too much information. [in the book]
-
'The Court dealt with 302 applications concerning Portugal in 2016, of which 269 were declared
inadmissible or struck out. It delivered 19 judgments (concerning 33 applications), 17 of which
found at least one violation of the European Convention on Human Rights.'
http://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/CP_Portugal_ENG.pdf
Now, what I can't see on the site is how many of the small number of cases brought successfully, were acted upon by Portugal.
Also...............
http://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/Stats_violation_1959_2016_ENG.pdf
-
thats article 10...not 8.....you are quoting the wrong article
ase of Pfeifer v. Austria, the right to protection of reputation was established as a Convention right under art. 8 ECHR. From Pfeifer: “a person’s right to protection of his or her reputation is encompassed by Article 8 as being part of the right to respect for private life”.
I think you are confused, my reference was definitely from Article 8.
-
I think you are confused, my reference was definitely from Article 8.
Its in both...Im not confused at all but when im answerring posts to 4 and 5 posters at the same time its a little difficult even for me...so in what way do you feel this is relevant to the case
The relevant part in this case is "... except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime..."
-
Will any of these arguments matter until The Court of Human Rights decide? This is all a howl a minute until they do.
I become increasingly separated from it all. I remain entirely focused on Innocent Until Proven Guilty.
-
Will any of these arguments matter until The Court of Human Rights decide? This is all a howl a minute until they do.
I become increasingly separated from it all. I remain entirely focused on Innocent Until Proven Guilty.
Yes...the court claiming the mccanns hadnt proved their innocence....that could well be another point
-
Will any of these arguments matter until The Court of Human Rights decide? This is all a howl a minute until they do.
I become increasingly separated from it all. I remain entirely focused on Innocent Until Proven Guilty.
Don't forget maddie was innocent as well.
She is the one that paid the price for being left,where can she go for her rights.
-
Yes...the court claiming the mccanns hadnt proved their innocence....that could well be another point
I don't understand much of The Court of Human Rights, since as you say, it is all to do with Points of Law. So while I understand Points of Law, you do have to understand which Law you are dealing with.
Portuguese Law is very suspect at the moment. Some senior Judges are under scrutiny. This might be fine for Portugal, but not necessarily fine for The Court of Human Rights.
-
I don't understand much of The Court of Human Rights, since as you say, it is all to do with Points of Law. So while I understand Points of Law, you do have to understand which Law you are dealing with.
Portuguese Law is very suspect at the moment. Some senior Judges are under scrutiny. This might be fine for Portugal, but not necessarily fine for The Court of Human Rights.
That would suggest that the application in some cases may be suspect, not the law itself.
This is why countries have a system of higher courts.
-
Don't forget maddie was innocent as well.
She is the one that paid the price for being left,where can she go for her rights.
Someone claimed earlier that the ECHR would not concern itself with Madeleine's rights, the following says differently.
Article 24 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights
The rights of the child
1. Children shall have the right to such protection and care as is necessary for their well-being. They may express their views freely. Such views shall be taken into consideration on matters which concern them in accordance with their age and maturity.
2. In all actions relating to children, whether taken by public authorities or private institutions, the child''s best interests must be a primary consideration.
3. Every child shall have the right to maintain on a regular basis a personal relationship and direct contact with both his or her parents, unless that is contrary to his or her interests.
http://fra.europa.eu/en/charterpedia/article/24-rights-child
-
Well, I suggest they don't try that, as they exposed their lives, including private lives, to the media.
Kate was explaining how a situation such as theirs could drive couples apart.
https://www.thesun.co.uk/archives/news/534451/i-couldnt-make-love-to-gerry/
-
Someone claimed earlier that the ECHR would not concern itself with Madeleine's rights, the following says differently.
Article 24 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights
The rights of the child
1. Children shall have the right to such protection and care as is necessary for their well-being. They may express their views freely. Such views shall be taken into consideration on matters which concern them in accordance with their age and maturity.
2. In all actions relating to children, whether taken by public authorities or private institutions, the child''s best interests must be a primary consideration.
3. Every child shall have the right to maintain on a regular basis a personal relationship and direct contact with both his or her parents, unless that is contrary to his or her interests.
http://fra.europa.eu/en/charterpedia/article/24-rights-child
this application is against portugal and the verdict given by the SC.......it will not consider maddies human rights...they are not relevant to this case...imo
-
Someone claimed earlier that the ECHR would not concern itself with Madeleine's rights, the following says differently.
Article 24 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights
The rights of the child
1. Children shall have the right to such protection and care as is necessary for their well-being. They may express their views freely. Such views shall be taken into consideration on matters which concern them in accordance with their age and maturity.
2. In all actions relating to children, whether taken by public authorities or private institutions, the child''s best interests must be a primary consideration.
3. Every child shall have the right to maintain on a regular basis a personal relationship and direct contact with both his or her parents, unless that is contrary to his or her interests.
http://fra.europa.eu/en/charterpedia/article/24-rights-child
Madeleine was excluded from the original case so cannot be considered by the ECHR in this case. IMO
-
Don't forget maddie was innocent as well.
She is the one that paid the price for being left,where can she go for her rights.
I am becoming increasingly fed up with demands for the rights of Madeleine when so many believe her dead, without any proof at all. This actually deprives her of the right to be alive.
We all know that Madeleine is innocent.
-
Someone claimed earlier that the ECHR would not concern itself with Madeleine's rights, the following says differently.
Article 24 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights
The rights of the child
1. Children shall have the right to such protection and care as is necessary for their well-being. They may express their views freely. Such views shall be taken into consideration on matters which concern them in accordance with their age and maturity.
2. In all actions relating to children, whether taken by public authorities or private institutions, the child''s best interests must be a primary consideration.
3. Every child shall have the right to maintain on a regular basis a personal relationship and direct contact with both his or her parents, unless that is contrary to his or her interests.
http://fra.europa.eu/en/charterpedia/article/24-rights-child
Given that they brought the litigation using Madeleines name,that must have some bearing.imo
-
That would suggest that the application in some cases may be suspect, not the law itself.
This is why countries have a system of higher courts.
I shall have to have a think about that. But at least it is a pertinent point. Thank you for that.
-
The case before the ECHR wil deal with very specific points of law...it wont bring everything back to the sceptic mantra of..."it was all the mccanns fault"...imo ......
-
I am becoming increasingly fed up with demands for the rights of Madeleine when so many believe her dead, without any proof at all. This actually deprives her of the right to be alive.
We all know that Madeleine is innocent.
It maybe unpalatable to contemplate it,but SY and I dare say the PJ can't confirm either way,Rowley is pessimistic about it.
-
The case before the ECHR wil deal with very specific points of law...it wont bring everything back to the sceptic mantra of..."it was all the mccanns fault"...imo ......
Nor Amarals.imo
-
Nor Amarals.imo
correct...it will deal with the reasoning of the SC in reaching its verdict..imo
-
this application is against portugal and the verdict given by the SC.......it will not consider maddies human rights...they are not relevant to this case...imo
I disagree davel because this entire case is about Madeleine and what happened to her.
-
Someone claimed earlier that the ECHR would not concern itself with Madeleine's rights, the following says differently.
Article 24 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights
The rights of the child
1. Children shall have the right to such protection and care as is necessary for their well-being. They may express their views freely. Such views shall be taken into consideration on matters which concern them in accordance with their age and maturity.
2. In all actions relating to children, whether taken by public authorities or private institutions, the child''s best interests must be a primary consideration.
3. Every child shall have the right to maintain on a regular basis a personal relationship and direct contact with both his or her parents, unless that is contrary to his or her interests.
http://fra.europa.eu/en/charterpedia/article/24-rights-child
And these children have a right to be deemed alive when there is no evidence to the contrary.
There is no evidence for believing that Madeleine is dead. And certainly no proof.
-
Madeleine was excluded from the original case so cannot be considered by the ECHR in this case. IMO
The only exclusion related to the names on the original writ.
-
The only exclusion related to the names on the original writ.
As she wasn't named on the writ, I don't see how she can considered when examining points of law arising from the Supreme Courts findings.
-
And these children have a right to be deemed alive when there is no evidence to the contrary.
There is no evidence for believing that Madeleine is dead. And certainly no proof.
The fact that she disappeared under mysterious circumstances and has not been seen for over ten years, the fact that her parents were both suspects in that disappearance would leave most people with a slight inkling that she is deceased.
-
As she wasn't named on the writ, I don't see how she can considered when examining points of law arising from the Supreme Courts findings.
Without Madeleine there is no case.
-
As she wasn't named on the writ, I don't see how she can considered when examining points of law arising from the Supreme Courts findings.
She was named on the SC judgement.
Kate, Gerald, Madeleine, Sean and Amelie McCann ― the last three minors represented by the first claimants, their parents ― filed, against Gonçalo Amaral, the publisher Guerra & Paz, Editores SA, the audiovisual production company Valentim de Carvalho-Filmes e Audiovisuais SA and the TV Channel TVI-Televisão Independente, legal actions in the ordinary form, subsequently attached to Lisbon 1st Civil Chamber, demanding the condemnation of the first defendant to pay the claimants the total amount of €1.200.000, plus interest at the legal rate since the summons, as compensation for moral damages arising from the publication by the first defendant, in book and DVD, of his version of the facts related to the disappearance of the minor MMC, third claimant, and the prohibition for sale, publication or disclosure by all defendants, book and DVD in question.
-
The case before the ECHR wil deal with very specific points of law...it wont bring everything back to the sceptic mantra of..."it was all the mccanns fault"...imo ......
Why, because that wouldn't be convenient?
-
Without Madeleine there is no case.
True.
Perhaps we need to see the exact details of the application before the court.
-
Why, because that wouldn't be convenient?
because it would not be relevant to this particular issue
-
I disagree davel because this entire case is about Madeleine and what happened to her.
This application is nothing to do with maddie...I suspect one of the points will be defamation...and as eleanor pointed out...presumption of innocence
-
because it would not be relevant to this particular issue
Really.
Perhaps you can provide a cite for that.
-
Why, because that wouldn't be convenient?
If you read the SC judgement one point they made clearly was that they were not there to judge the culpability or otherwise of the mccanns
-
This application is nothing to do with maddie...I suspect one of the points will be defamation...and as eleanor pointed out...presumption of innocence
The case is not against Amaral.
The Mccanns put themselves in the public eye, along with their private life.
-
Really.
Perhaps you can provide a cite for that.
see my post above re the SC judgement
-
The case is mot against Amaral.
The Mccanns put themselves in the public eye, along with their private life.
I didnt mention amaral...its whether the SC got the judgement re defamation correct........
-
see my post above re the SC judgement
Irrelevant.
That case is done and dusted.
Nothing to do with Amaral any more.
-
I didnt mention amaral...its whether the SC got the judgement re defamation correct........
The Mccanns placed themselves in the public eye.
Their actions are to blame, not Amaral and not Portugal.
-
The Mccanns placed thenselves in the public eye.
Their actions are to blame, not Amaral and not Portugal.
Its nothing to do with being in the public eye...what makes you think it is
-
For those who perhaps havent read the SC judgement .....nb.....
At the centre of this trial, there is a conflict between two existing rights, the right to good name and reputation of the claimants (through the presumption of innocence that they always were entitled to) and the right to freedom of expression of the defendant, in the concrete field of the right to opinion he is entitled to.
That sums up everything I have said...thats what the ECHR appeal will be concerned with...not that the mccanns were wrong to leave maddie..imo
-
And these children have a right to be deemed alive when there is no evidence to the contrary.
There is no evidence for believing that Madeleine is dead. And certainly no proof.
Families also have a right for missing relatives to be considered dead, without proof.
-
Families also have a right for missing relatives to be considered dead, without proof.
considered dead for legal purposes is not the same as beleiving someone is dead
-
Yes...the court claiming the mccanns hadnt proved their innocence....that could well be another point
That statement is not correct. The Supreme Court judges clearly stated it wasn't something they should or would consider;
It must be reminded that, in the present case, the issue isn't the appellants' penal liability, in other words their innocence or their guilt concerning the facts leading to the disappearance of her daughter doesn't have to be appreciated here. Page 69
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=7937.15
-
Yes...the court claiming the mccanns hadnt proved their innocence....that could well be another point
You conveniently forgot to mention that it was the McCanns themselves who started this narrative when they claimed they had been cleared. The Supreme Court was right to correct them in the way they did because they have never been cleared. In fact their involvement post 3rd May 2007 has still to be properly investigated imo.
-
That statement is not correct. The Supreme Court judges clearly stated it wasn't something they should or would consider;
It must be reminded that, in the present case, the issue isn't the appellants' penal liability, in other words their innocence or their guilt concerning the facts leading to the disappearance of her daughter doesn't have to be appreciated here. Page 69
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=7937.15
Im glad you pointed that out...angelo seems to think the SC have questioned their innocence. The SC did say theat the presumption of innocence was linked to the right toa good name
-
You conveniently forgot to mention that it was the McCanns themselves who started this narrative when they claimed they had been cleared. The Supreme Court was right to correct them in the way they did because they have never been cleared. In fact their involvement post 3rd May 2007 has still to be properly investigated imo.
It has been properly investigated imo....From memory the mccanns claimed that the archiving despatch was evidence of innocence... the SC disagreed....imo it is and the ECHR may well mention that
-
Its nothing to do with being in the public eye...what makes you think it is
This?
what is discussed in the present case is the exercise of the right to opinion of the respondent on matters of public interest concerning the appellants who, in this case, have to be considered public figures.
Page 62
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=7937.15
-
I am becoming increasingly fed up with demands for the rights of Madeleine when so many believe her dead, without any proof at all. This actually deprives her of the right to be alive.
We all know that Madeleine is innocent.
Dead or alive, it is Maddie's rights which were clearly breached. Under the aforementioned Article 24 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights children have the right to protection and care as is necessary for their well-being. Did Maddie's parents ever consider her rights when they went out leaving her and her twin siblings alone in an unlocked apartment?
-
Its nothing to do with being in the public eye...what makes you think it is
And also, they are voluntary public figures, because they accepted to be thrown into the vulnerability of the public sphere, as a consequence of the role that they tried to assume in the public debate in which they decided to intervene.
Actually, as stated in the judgement under appeal and as it results from the proven facts, it was the appellants themselves who, by virtue of having easy access to the public debate, multiplied in interviews and interventions in the national and international media. Thus they opened the way for any person wishing equally to express an opinion on the case, contradicting their thesis.
Now, as Francisco Teixeira da Mota points out, op. cit. p. 21, The ECHR, in assessing the cases that are submitted to them, grants' the maximum degree of protection to the public debate and to freedom of expression, when public or political issues are at stake, including the public figures themselves and their actions.
This Court in fact considers that freedom of expression, as provided for in article 10°-1 of the European Convention on Human Rights, constitutes one of the essential foundations of a democratic society, one of the basic conditions for its progress and for the development of every man.
As already mentioned, the ECHR has developed a doctrine of enhanced protection of the freedom of expression, when the person targeted by the imputations of facts and by the formulation of dishonourable value judgements is a public figure and when a matter of public interest is at stake.
Actually, being a public figure and not a mere private person, the targeted person is more exposed, unavoidably and consciously, to a tight control of his behaviour and opinions by journalists as well as by the general public. This is why the public figure should demonstrate a much greater tolerance in regard of such control.
And this is all the more so when it happens that the targeted persons themselves are the ones who utter public statements susceptible of criticism.
-
I have cosidered that and it may be another mistake by the SC.....public figures have less protection but imo public figures refers to public servants...again something for the ECHR to rule on
-
Dead or alive, it is Maddie's rights which were clearly breached. Under the aforementioned Article 24 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights children have the right to protection and care as is necessary for their well-being. Did Maddie's parents ever consider her rights when they went out leaving her and her twin siblings alone in an unlocked apartment?
according to the archiving report the Mccanns did not neglect Maddie...Im not interested getting drawn into a pointless argument that has been discussed a million times before
-
It has been properly investigated imo....From memory the mccanns claimed that the archiving despatch was evidence of innocence... the SC disagreed....imo it is and the ECHR may well mention that
I was referring to the private detectives who were tasked with attacking Amaral when they were supposed to be searching for Maddie.
-
according to the archiving report the Mccanns did not neglect Maddie...Im not interested getting drawn into a pointless argument that has been discussed a million times before
Neglect and failure to keep safe are two separate issues. Which part of protection and care don't you understand? It was as a direct result of their actions that Maddie was either abducted, met with an accident outside or both.
-
Dead or alive, it is Maddie's rights which were clearly breached. Under the aforementioned Article 24 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights children have the right to protection and care as is necessary for their well-being. Did Maddie's parents ever consider her rights when they went out leaving her and her twin siblings alone in an unlocked apartment?
the ECHR only considers breaches it is asked to cosider...which does not include maddie
-
I was referring to the private detectives who were tasked with attacking Amaral when they were supposed to be searching for Maddie.
the ECHR wont be considering that either...I thought you were going to write to the pj
-
I have cosidered that and it may be another mistake by the SC.....public figures have less protection but imo public figures refers to public servants...again something for the ECHR to rule on
Thus, it does not appear acceptable to consider that the alluded dispatch, based on the insufficiency of evidence, should be treated as evidence of innocence.
We consider, therefore, that the invocation of breach of the principle of presumption of innocence should not be upheld. That principle does not fall under the decision about the question that has to be resolved.
-
Neglect and failure to keep safe are two separate issues. Which part of protection and care don't you understand?
raed the archiving report re neglect and you will understand...not keeping safe comes under the umbrella of neglect
-
Neglect and failure to keep safe are two separate issues. Which part of protection and care don't you understand? It was as a direct result of their actions that Maddie was either abducted, met with an accident outside or both.
Thus, the enhancing judgment and the logical-deductive reasoning he develops throughout the book leads the reader to the conclusion that the child - whose custody and safety, along with that of her siblings Sean McCann and Amelie McCann, were neglected by her parents, here appellants, though neither reckless nor grossly, as it is said in the filing order issued by the prosecutor of the Republic on 21/7/08
-
Does any one know if the Portuguese get to put their point of view across before such a decision to proceed is taken,if it gets that far.
In answer to my question it seems as if they do.
. The Chamber may still declare the case inadmissible and, if it does, that decision will be final, but if it considers the case admissible it will examine the merits of your complaint. Before doing that, however, it will first communicate the application to the Government concerned, to inform them of the existence of the complaint and allow them to submit observations on the matter in dispute.
http://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/Your_Application_ENG.pdf
-
The fact that she disappeared under mysterious circumstances and has not been seen for over ten years, the fact that her parents were both suspects in that disappearance would leave most people with a slight inkling that she is deceased.
The fact that her parents were made arguidos for spurious reasons which resulted in neither evidence supporting their involvement in Madeleine's disappearance nor the fact that there was any evidence to support Madeleine's demise; leaves me with the firm belief that her presumption of life just as her parents presumption of innocence have been ground into the dust.
Not really by the Portuguese system which allowed a mibbees aye mibbees no for Madeleine and the release of the arguidos from suspicion ... but when it boils down to it ... one man who wrote a book with no substance to it.
It will be interesting if nothing else to see what the ECHR makes of the points of law which have arisen as a result of an appeal court decision which some see as sacrosanct.
For me, I am just disappointed that Madeleine's parents have been left to seek justice in the European Court and I wish them every hope for success, but more than that, I wish them the success of finding out what happened to their daughter and perhaps even her return.
-
The fact that her parents were made arguidos for spurious reasons which resulted in neither evidence supporting their involvement in Madeleine's disappearance nor the fact that there was any evidence to support Madeleine's demise; leaves me with the firm belief that her presumption of life just as her parents presumption of innocence have been ground into the dust.
Not really by the Portuguese system which allowed a mibbees aye mibbees no for Madeleine and the release of the arguidos from suspicion ... but when it boils down to it ... one man who wrote a book with no substance to it.
It will be interesting if nothing else to see what the ECHR makes of the points of law which have arisen as a result of an appeal court decision which some see as sacrosanct.
For me, I am just disappointed that Madeleine's parents have been left to seek justice in the European Court and I wish them every hope for success, but more than that, I wish them the success of finding out what happened to their daughter and perhaps even her return.
Absolutely true....IMO
-
The fact that her parents were made arguidos for spurious reasons which resulted in neither evidence supporting their involvement in Madeleine's disappearance nor the fact that there was any evidence to support Madeleine's demise; leaves me with the firm belief that her presumption of life just as her parents presumption of innocence have been ground into the dust.
Not really by the Portuguese system which allowed a mibbees aye mibbees no for Madeleine and the release of the arguidos from suspicion ... but when it boils down to it ... one man who wrote a book with no substance to it.
It will be interesting if nothing else to see what the ECHR makes of the points of law which have arisen as a result of an appeal court decision which some see as sacrosanct.
For me, I am just disappointed that Madeleine's parents have been left to seek justice in the European Court and I wish them every hope for success, but more than that, I wish them the success of finding out what happened to their daughter and perhaps even her return.
In reality, the spurious reasons, are in your opinion.
The PJ could find no evidence to support abduction.
-
perhaps its because its all true...imo
Doesn’t matter if it is true or not, it is unknown whether the reasons where spurious.
-
I still maintain absence of evidence is evidence of innocence imo...posters here regularly use the absence argument a s evidence
-
I have cosidered that and it may be another mistake by the SC.....public figures have less protection but imo public figures refers to public servants...again something for the ECHR to rule on
Nope! The SC were quite correct;
a public figure, either a public official or any other person pervasively involved in public affairs, or. a limited purpose public figure, meaning those who have "thrust themselves to the forefront of particular public controversies in order to influence the resolution of the issues involved."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_figure
-
Doesn’t matter if it is true or not, it is unknown whether the reasons where spurious.
as far as I am aware it is known and admitted in the archiving report...in similar words...all my opinion
-
I still maintain absence of evidence is evidence of innocence imo...posters here regularly use the absence argument a s evidence
It seems learned judges disagree with you.
-
Nope! The SC were quite correct;
a public figure, either a public official or any other person pervasively involved in public affairs, or. a limited purpose public figure, meaning those who have "thrust themselves to the forefront of particular public controversies in order to influence the resolution of the issues involved."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_figure
I dont think wiki will be admissable in the ECHR...do you
-
It seems learned judges disagree with you.
judges have been wrong before
-
judges have been wrong before
Quite right, the first judge, in the case.
-
Quite right, the first judge, in the case.
Interesting point...the fact that she found in the mccanns favour shows the case is not as clear cut as the sceptics would think
-
Interesting point...the fact that she found in the mccanns favour shows the case is not as clear cut as the sceptics would think
She made mistakes.
She didn't abide by Portuguese Law.
Quite rightly, after all, we have to abide by the law.
-
She made mistakes.
She didn't abide by Portuguese Law.
Quite rightly, after all, we have to abide by the law.
I think you will find it is european law that is important here
-
I think you will find it is european law that is important here
...and I think that this attempt going to the E.C.H.R. is merely a delaying tactic and will be a complete failure.
Have you read the data I provided earlier from the E.C.H.R. ?
-
...and I think that this attempt going to the E.C.H.R. is merely a delaying tactic and will be a complete failure.
Have you read the data I provided earlier from the E.C.H.R. ?
I don't see it as a delaying tactic, merely a manifestation of their inability to accept that they are wrong.
-
The fact that her parents were made arguidos for spurious reasons which resulted in neither evidence supporting their involvement in Madeleine's disappearance nor the fact that there was any evidence to support Madeleine's demise; leaves me with the firm belief that her presumption of life just as her parents presumption of innocence have been ground into the dust.
Not really by the Portuguese system which allowed a mibbees aye mibbees no for Madeleine and the release of the arguidos from suspicion ... but when it boils down to it ... one man who wrote a book with no substance to it.
It will be interesting if nothing else to see what the ECHR makes of the points of law which have arisen as a result of an appeal court decision which some see as sacrosanct.
For me, I am just disappointed that Madeleine's parents have been left to seek justice in the European Court and I wish them every hope for success, but more than that, I wish them the success of finding out what happened to their daughter and perhaps even her return.
The Portuguese authorities followed Portuguese and Human Rights law to the letter. The McCann's right to the presumption of innocence was not breached.
-
the sc have to strike a balance between freedom of expression and right to a good name...they explain this in the judgement if you read it....so their ruling is their opinion of where the balance lies....thats what i believe the mccanns can challenge
You have avoided the questions.
-
You have avoided the questions.
Im fielding about 6 at a time at the moment...ask again
-
I don't see it as a delaying tactic, merely a manifestation of their inability to accept that they are wrong.
It could well be both Jassi.
-
I dont think he is......why do you think he has gone so quiet
It's difficult to talk whilst wiping the smile off one's face?
-
It's difficult to talk whilst wiping the smile off one's face?
dont worry...Ill book you in for tomorrow
-
read this
https://www.lawteacher.net/free-law-essays/constitutional-law/law-of-defamation-and-human-rights-constitutional-law-essay.php
It refers to English Law.
-
It refers to English Law.
It expalins a lot about EU law re defamation
-
The relevant part in this case is "... except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime..."
In my view the McCanns haven't a leg to stand on.
We don't even know the grounds of their application to the ECtHR nor whether the application was within the time limit*.
* see the ECtHR definition of "within the time limit" not the definition of it by The Man On The Clapham Omnibus.
-
Yes...the court claiming the mccanns hadnt proved their innocence....that could well be another point
Did the court make that claim in those words?
-
Did the court make that claim in those words?
no it was in prtuguese
-
correct...it will deal with the reasoning of the SC in reaching its verdict..imo
The ECtHR will look solely at whether there has been a violation of the McCanns rights by The State of Portugal
-
We don't even know the grounds of their application to the ECtHR nor whether the application was within the time limit*.
* see the ECtHR definition of "within the time limit" not the definition of it by The Man On The Clapham Omnibus.
What do we know
-
The ECtHR will look solely at whether there has been a violation of the McCanns rights by The State of Portugal
Absolutely ...nothing regarding the Human rights of maddie as some have claimed
-
For those who perhaps havent read the SC judgement .....nb.....
At the centre of this trial, there is a conflict between two existing rights, the right to good name and reputation of the claimants (through the presumption of innocence that they always were entitled to) and the right to freedom of expression of the defendant, in the concrete field of the right to opinion he is entitled to.
That sums up everything I have said...thats what the ECHR appeal will be concerned with...not that the mccanns were wrong to leave maddie..imo
Why do you keep harpimg back to the trial? The ECHR isn't interested in a case between private individuals, they are concerned with human rights and only human rights. As pointed out numerous times already, the case will be against Portugal and not Goncalo Amaral. If the McCanns claim that their human rights have been violated then the human rights of their missing child will also come into the equation.
-
The Portuguese authorities followed Portuguese and Human Rights law to the letter. The McCann's right to the presumption of innocence was not breached.
Absolutely true, refusing to answer the simplest of questions, avoiding a reconstruction and generally being obstructive and abusive to police officers has never been seen in policing circles as being conducive with innocence.
-
Why do you keep harpimg back to the trial? The ECHR isn't interested in a case between private individuals, they are concerned with human rights and only human rights. As pointed out numerous times already, the case will be against Portugal and not Goncalo Amaral. If the McCanns claim that their human rights have been violated then the human rights of their missing child will also come into the equation.
im harping back to the trial because the reason for going to the ECHR is because the Mccanns allege that the SC judgement denied them their human rights.The human rights of Maddie are not in question and are totally irrelevant to their case...all imo.
-
im harping back to the trial because the reason for going to the ECHR is because the Mccanns allege that the SC judgement denied them their legal rights.The human rights of Maddie are not in question and are totally irrelevant to their case...all imo.
The Mccann's had their days in court, and they fluffed it.
How can you say they were denied their legal rights.
That is totally illogical.
By the way, just because the McCann's didn't get the judgement they wanted, doesn't mean due process wasn't followed. It clearly was, as per Portuguese law.
-
im harping back to the trial because the reason for going to the ECHR is because the Mccanns allege that the SC judgement denied them their legal rights.The human rights of Maddie are not in question and are totally irrelevant to their case...all imo.
The McCanns are attempting to take Portugal to Court at the ECHR. What the court looks at is up to it.
-
The McCanns are attempting to take Portugal to Court at the ECHR. What the court looks at is up to it.
The ECHR only looks at Human Rights. The SC expalined at length its decision with refernece to European Law. The only case the mccanns have is if they can show that the SC decision was flawed re european law...that makes perfect sense...imo
-
The ECHR only looks at Human Rights. The SC expalined at length its decision with refernece to European Law. The only case the mccanns have is if they can show that the SC decision was flawed re european law...that makes perfect sense...imo
They can still look at whatever they think is relevant.
-
They can still look at whatever they think is relevant.
so who has denied the mccanns their human rights...the SC......its rather strange to suggest they wont look at the judgement that they claim denied them their human rights..IMO...they will not consider Maddies Human rights ...unless the mccanns complain that portugal has violated them.....all my opinion
-
The Mccann's had their days in court, and they fluffed it.
How can you say they were denied their legal rights.
That is totally illogical.
By the way, just because the McCann's didn't get the judgement they wanted, doesn't mean due process wasn't followed. It clearly was, as per Portuguese law.
It is up to the ECHR to decide if the Mccanns human rights have been denied...it is they who will decide...imo iys totally logical...and again it is NOT portuguese law that is in question,...its european law
-
It is not Amaral anymore.
That is done and dusted.
Any case, is against the state of Portugal.
Did you read the data I supplied yesterday from the E.C.H.R. ?
-
so who has denied the mccanns their human rights...the SC......its rather strange to suggest they wont look at the judgement that they claim denied them their human rights..IMO...they will not consider Maddies Human rights ...unless the mccanns complain that portugal has violated them.....all my opinion
They will look at the everything appertaining to Madeleine’s disappearance IMO or just the final judgement.
-
It is not Amaral anymore.
That is done and dusted.
Any case, is against the state of Portugal.
Did you read the data I supplied yesterday from the E.C.H.R. ?
if you read my posts you will see its MCcann Vs Portugal......re human rights.....how much clearer can I be. human rights they claim have been denied by the SC....
your data has little relevance to individual cases...each case is judged on its merits
-
They will look at the everything appertaining to Madeleine’s disappearance IMO or just the final judgement.
they will look at everything pertaining to what the mccanns application claims.....and is relevant to the denial of the McCanns human rights..imo
-
the most relevant thing to the denial of the mccanns human rights is the SC decision...imo...thats why the SC decision is important...Have the SC correctly applied european law in this case ...that is the question..all imo
-
To put it really simply..
If te SC judgement is correct re european law then the mccanns have no case...the mccanns have to show the judgement is flawed...how anyone can anyone therefore claim the judgement is not relevant....all imo
-
the most relevant thing to the denial of the mccanns human rights is the SC decision...imo...thats why the SC decision is important...Have the SC correctly applied european law in this case ...that is the question..all imo
Then IMO, you are going to be very, very disappointed.
-
To put it really simply..
If te SC judgement is correct re european law then the mccanns have no case...the mccanns have to show the judgement is flawed...how anyone can anyone therefore claim the judgement is not relevant....all imo
The Mccanns went to court, thinking Amaral was an easy target, and that they would gain a load of dosh.
They lost.
Meanwhile , they still owe fees to the Portuguese.
-
If you look at other ECHR cases they constantly refer to court judgements made by the countries courts....
-
they will look at everything pertaining to what the mccanns application claims.....and is relevant to the denial of the McCanns human rights..imo
Many a lawyer has attempted to restrict what a court looks at, usually unsuccessfully IMO.
-
Many a lawyer has attempted to restrict what a court looks at, usually unsuccessfully IMO.
are you suggesting the mccanns lawyers will try and do this...its a massive assumption to make
-
are you suggesting the mccanns lawyers will try and do this...its a massive assumption to make
Not really, every lawyer will know their case has areas of strength and areas of weakness. They will try to steer away from the weak areas and concentrate on the strong. IMO their lawyers will avoid the subject of child care though of course it is well documented in the final judgement so it will probably come up.
-
If you look at other ECHR cases they constantly refer to court judgements made by the countries courts....
...and ?
As stated, the E.C.H.R. has no powers of enforcement, and the majority of claims are rejected.
-
Not really, every lawyer will know their case has areas of strength and areas of weakness. They will try to steer away from the weak areas and concentrate on the strong. IMO their lawyers will avoid the subject of child care though of course it is well documented in the final judgement so it will probably come up.
WE will have to wait and see ....not relevant imo
-
...and ?
As stated, the E.C.H.R. has no powers of enforcement, and the majority of claims are rejected.
We have been through all this before so I dont see the point in discussing the same points again
-
We have been through all this before so I dont see the point in discussing the same points again
It is quite relevant, if the E.C.H.R. has no powers of enforcement.
-
WE will have to wait and see ....not relevant imo
IMO They will want to know about every aspect of the case.
-
At the centre of this trial, there is a conflict between two existing rights, the right to good name and reputation of the claimants (through the presumption of innocence that they always were entitled to) and the right to freedom of expression of the defendant, in the concrete field of the right to opinion he is entitled to.
This is what teh ECHR will be concerned with and nothing else...imo
-
At the centre of this trial, there is a conflict between two existing rights, the right to good name and reputation of the claimants (through the presumption of innocence that they always were entitled to) and the right to freedom of expression of the defendant, in the concrete field of the right to opinion he is entitled to.
This is what teh ECHR will be concerned with and nothing else...imo
You seem to have forgotten that Amaral has human rights too, and the mccanns quite clearly intended to destroy Amaral in taking him to court in the first place...imo
-
You seem to have forgotten that Amaral has human rights too, and the mccanns quite clearly intended to destroy Amaral in taking him to court in the first place...imo
Also be miserable and feel fear, the mccanns are good at that imo.
-
You seem to have forgotten that Amaral has human rights too, and the mccanns quite clearly intended to destroy Amaral in taking him to court in the first place...imo
If you read the post you quoted you will see I haven't forgot
-
Also be miserable and feel fear, the mccanns are good at that imo.
Indeed Kizzy, I remember exactly what Kate McCann wanted Amaral to feel.
-
Also be miserable and feel fear, the mccanns are good at that imo.
Not relevant imo
Read the quote I've given from the SC
That is what the ECHR case is about...nothing more..imo
-
Indeed Kizzy, I remember exactly what Kate McCann wanted Amaral to feel.
not relevant imo...see post above
-
At the centre of this trial, there is a conflict between two existing rights, the right to good name and reputation of the claimants (through the presumption of innocence that they always were entitled to) and the right to freedom of expression of the defendant, in the concrete field of the right to opinion he is entitled to.
This is what teh ECHR will be concerned with and nothing else...imo
IMO if that is all they are looking at the McCanns will lose. To win they must have a point of law that Portugal got wrong. That is a judgement call taking two human rights into account. This isn’t an appeal of the verdict.
-
IMO if that is all they are looking at the McCanns will lose. To win they must have a point of law that Portugal got wrong. That is a judgement call taking two human rights into account. This isn’t an appeal of the verdict.
Not imo
It's an appeal re their human rights and the fact that they feel SC made an incorrect application of European law...that their opinion re the balance of each individual's human rights was incorrect..all my opinion
-
Not imo
It's an appeal re their human rights and the fact that they feel SC made an incorrect application of European law...that their opinion re the balance of each individual's human rights was incorrect..all my opinion
What is your experience in law. European or otherwise.
Before you give the inevitable response, I don't proclaim to.
However, through my contacts, I know a Barrister who has knowledge of this field of law, and asked his opinion.
-
At the centre of this trial, there is a conflict between two existing rights, the right to good name and reputation of the claimants (through the presumption of innocence that they always were entitled to) and the right to freedom of expression of the defendant, in the concrete field of the right to opinion he is entitled to.
This is what teh ECHR will be concerned with and nothing else...imo
Could you provide the page number please? Ty.
-
What is your experience in law. European or otherwise.
Before you give the inevitable response, I don't proclaim to.
However, through my contacts, I know a Barrister who has knowledge of this field of law, and asked his opinion.
As you might see from my posts I have discussed the case with friends in the legal profession.....one who has a special interest in EU law..and they broadly agree with me
-
Could you provide the page number please? Ty.
Are you not familiar with it....I thought you had an in depth knowledge of the judgement
Its a direct copy and paste...I will see if I can sort the page number
-
Guys I think cites to previous is better than Appeal to authority.
-
Are you not familiar with it....I thought you had an in depth knowledge of the judgement
Its a direct copy and paste...I will see if I can sort the page number
I think it's a good idea in future to provide the link and the page number so there's no misunderstanding. The statement (on page 5) is a quote from the first judgement, the findings of which had already been overturned by the Appeal Court judges.
-
I think it's a good idea in future to provide the link and the page number so there's no misunderstanding. The statement (on page 5) is a quote from the first judgement, the findings of which had already been overturned by the Appeal Court judges.
I would say it is still highly relevant and will be what the ECHR will be considering..imo
-
I would say it is still highly relevant and will be what the ECHR will be considering..imo
The ECtHR will consider only that which is written on the application.
The Court must be able to understand, by reading just the application form, the key facts of the case, which rights have been infringed and how, and the remedies which have been exhausted and on which dates.
An applicant must put down the gist of what he or she is complaining about. The Court cannot infer
from the facts or domestic court documents what the applicant considers to be in breach of his or
her rights. An applicant should try and identify those Articles of the Convention which cover what he
or she complains about – the Articles are framed in very plain and general terms that are easily
understandable, such as ill-treatment, right to liberty, fair trial rights, family life rights, freedom of
expression, etc. It is crucial to write down both the Article of the Convention and in a few brief
sentences how it has been infringed –the Court cannot guess what an applicant objects to or make up the complaints for him or her. [/b]
-
I would say it is still highly relevant and will be what the ECHR will be considering..imo
It was alleged in the first ruling that one person; Amaral breached the McCanns right to the presumption of innocence. There were two reasons why that argument was rejected.
One was that the presumption of innocence applies only to the treatment of people charged with a criminal offence. The other was that there was no obligation for Amaral to abide by it anyway as it wasn't applicable to a retired officer of the PJ.
-
The ECtHR will consider only that which is written on the application.
The Court must be able to understand, by reading just the application form, the key facts of the case, which rights have been infringed and how, and the remedies which have been exhausted and on which dates.
An applicant must put down the gist of what he or she is complaining about. The Court cannot infer
from the facts or domestic court documents what the applicant considers to be in breach of his or
her rights. An applicant should try and identify those Articles of the Convention which cover what he
or she complains about – the Articles are framed in very plain and general terms that are easily
understandable, such as ill-treatment, right to liberty, fair trial rights, family life rights, freedom of
expression, etc. It is crucial to write down both the Article of the Convention and in a few brief
sentences how it has been infringed –the Court cannot guess what an applicant objects to or make up the complaints for him or her. [/b]
I'm sure the McCanns will be aware of this ....I've given my opinion on what the McCann's will be objecting to....
And what they will ask the court to consider....the quote I supplied sums it up imo
-
Just to round it off:
The European Court of Justice rules on European Union law, the EU having 27 member states.
The European Court of Human Rights rules on human rights within the states belonging to The Council of Europe. The Council of Europe has 47 member states.
The European Union and ipso fatso the ECJ has decided not to be bound by the rulings of the ECtHR.
Beyond that it becomes complex but if you are really interested read The Treaties of Rome(1950), Maastricht (1992) and Lisbon (2009).
In 2014 the European Court of Justice blew out the idea of the European Union's accession to the ECHR as it would give "Johnny Outsider" the power to review the application of EU law. To the best of my knowledge that is the curent status.
-
I'm sure the McCanns will be aware of this ....I've given my opinion on what the McCann's will be objecting to....
And what they will ask the court to consider....the quote I supplied sums it up imo
Where?
Give post numbers.
-
I think the best we can do is wait for more information. Just a case of waiting to see if presuming the McCann lawyers have submitted an application to the court on their behalf; then if the application will be considered. After that it will possibly be a very long wait for resolution one way or the other.
Just a waiting game really.
-
What is your experience in law. European or otherwise.
Before you give the inevitable response, I don't proclaim to.
However, through my contacts, I know a Barrister who has knowledge of this field of law, and asked his opinion.
you say you have asked a barrister his opinion ...would you like to share as the posts you have made on the topic dont really indicate any professional knowledge..imo
-
you say you have asked a barrister his opinion ...would you like to share as the posts you have made on the topic dont really indicate any professional knowledge..imo
So what was his opinion..it would be good to have some professional input
-
I have been down this road, it is a very slow process as the Application moves through the various stages.
An Application to the ECHR is simply a matter of filling out several pages of a standard booklet and submitting it, no fee involved. The McCanns should have heard by now if their Application has been accepted.
-
I have been down this road, it is a very slow process as the Application moves through the various stages.
An Application to the ECHR is simply a matter of filling out several pages of a standard booklet and submitting it, no fee involved. The McCanns should have heard by now if their Application has been accepted.
interesting ....but as they have said they wont be giving a running commentary. We will probably have to wait until the case is listed before anything is posted online which of course could be some time
-
interesting ....but as they have said they wont be giving a running commentary. We will probably have to wait until the case is listed before anything is posted online which of course could be some time
I suspect it has been rejected.
-
I suspect it has been rejected.
based on what...Im fairly certain it will be accepted
-
based on what...Im fairly certain it will be accepted
The acceptance criteria is quite straightforward forward and as far as I can see the McCann's application should satisfy all the criteria and be accepted. If anyone thinks it shouldn't it would be good to explain on what basis it will be rejected... otherwise their opinion doesn't carry a lot of weight...imo
-
The acceptance criteria is quite straightforward forward and as far as I can see the McCann's application should satisfy all the criteria and be accepted. If anyone thinks it shouldn't it would be good to explain on what basis it will be rejected... otherwise their opinion doesn't carry a lot of weight...imo
Repeating an opinion does not make it a fact.
-
The acceptance criteria is quite straightforward forward and as far as I can see the McCann's application should satisfy all the criteria and be accepted. If anyone thinks it shouldn't it would be good to explain on what basis it will be rejected... otherwise their opinion doesn't carry a lot of weight...imo
Ninety percent of applications are rejected. So far you haven't explained which of the McCann's human rights you think have been breached and how. Until you do that your opinion carries no weight either. Make your case!
-
Ninety percent of applications are rejected. So far you haven't explained which of the McCann's human rights you think have been breached and how. Until you do that your opinion carries no weight either. Make your case!
my opinin is that the application will be accepted and I have clearly expalined which human rights have been affected so by your argument my opinion carries weight
-
Repeating an opinion does not make it a fact.
Thats why my post contains..imo
-
The mccanns human rights have not been affected.
They brought the case.
They failed.
It is sour grapes and/or attempted delaying tactics which has led to this attempt to go to the E.C.H.R., after first saying they wouldn't, according to sources in the press, of course.
I.M.E.O. of course.
Have they paid up yet ?
We will find out shortly, Companies House Accounts due by the 31 st December 2017.
-
The mccanns human rights have not been affected.
They brought the case.
They failed.
It is sour grapes and/or attempted delaying tactics which has led to this attempt to go to the E.C.H.R., after first saying they wouldn't, according to sources in the press, of course.
I.M.E.O. of course.
Have they paid up yet ?
We will find out shortly, Companies House Accounts due by the 31 st December 2017.
thats just your opinion....what did your barrister friend say........imo they have been affected and my legal friends agree with me
-
thats just your opinion....what did your barrister friend say........imo they have been affected and my legal friends agree with me
We shall see very shortly who is right davel.
-
We shall see very shortly who is right davel.
so you didnt receive any advice from your barrister friend who you discussed teh case with
-
so you didnt receive any advice from your barrister friend
Yes davel I did.
I'm afraid your goading won't work.
-
Yes davel I did.
I'm afraid your goading won't work.
Then why cant you share it...i would have thought if it supported your argument you would want to share it....but you dont
-
Then why cant you share it...i would have thought if it supported your argument you would want to share it....but you dont
I already have davel. I asked his opinion, as his work encompasses human rights cases.
-
I also asked a social worker her view of the mccanns
-
I also asked a social worker her view of the mccanns
We have had social workers posting but they left after much abuse.
-
We have had social workers posting but they left after much abuse.
Indeed we did. Including one former Moderator.
-
We have had social workers posting but they left after much abuse.
yes there was a lot of abuse on here ....I was subject to quite a lot. I believe she now posts from a site that abuses posters here on a daily basis
-
yes there was a lot of abuse on here ....I was subject to quite a lot. I believe she now posts from a site that abuses posters here on a daily basis
That poster never abused anyone, just gave an unpopular professional opinion.
-
Back to topic.
-
so can anyone give a valid reason why the case will not be accepted as some seem to think
-
so can anyone give a valid reason why the case will not be accepted as some seem to think
We have done.
-
We have done.
I said a valid reason...any reason I have seen on this thread has not been valid...imo...claiming "what about maddies human rights" is not a valid reason
-
I said a valid reason...any reason I have seen on this thread has not been valid...imo
As you said your Opinion.
-
As you said your Opinion.
Its what we discuss on here...
-
my opinin is that the application will be accepted and I have clearly expalined which human rights have been affected so by your argument my opinion carries weight
You've given a quote from the first judgement and mentioned the balance between the right of free expression and the right to a good name.
Please explain how you think the McCann's right to the presumption of innocence was breached by the Portuguese state.
-
You've given a quote from the first judgement and mentioned the balance between the right of free expression and the right to a good name.
Please explain how you think the McCann's right to the presumption of innocence was breached by the Portuguese state.
my opinion is that the mccanns right to reputation has suffered by amarals claims...defamation....thats where the claim will focus..imo... I also believe that absence of evidence is evidence of innocence...a claim denied by the SC
-
my opinion is that the mccanns right to reputation has suffered by amarals claims...defamation....thats where the claim will focus..imo... I also believe that absence of evidence is evidence of innocence...a claim denied by the SC
They have failed to prove that.
You merely need to read through the Supreme Court Judgement to see why the Mccann's failed.
-
They have failed to prove that.
You merely need to read through the Supreme Court Judgement yo see why the Mccann's failed.
They have failed to prove that in the portugues courts...thats why they have now gone to Europe....tHe SC judgement is an opinion by the SC Judges...an interpretation....teh ECHR may not agree with their reasoning..imo
-
They have failed to prove that in the portugues courts...thats why they have now gone to Europe....tHe SC judgement is an opinion by the SC Judges...an interpretation....teh ECHR may not agree with their reasoning..imo
Where is the proof they have appealed to the E.C.H.R. ?
-
Another interesting point is that theSC seem to have based their judgement on the fact that the Mccnans are public figures....I think they are wrong on that too
-
Where is the proof they have appealed to the E.C.H.R. ?
evidence but no proof at the moment..
-
stephen...you claim to have spoken to barrister about the case...why are you so reluctant to share...does it not support your argument
-
Another interesting point is that theSC seem to have based their judgement on the fact that the Mccnans are public figures....I think they are wrong on that too
Wrong.
The Mccann's placed themselves in the public eye, and that includes their private lives.
In my opinion, a very foolish mistake to make.
-
stephen...you claim to have spoken to barrister about the case...why are you so reluctant to share...does it not support your argument
I would not have mentioned him, if he had not advised me on the matter. One of his areas of expertise is in human rights cases and he works in relation to the E.C.H.R.
You will be pleased to here I will be seeing him later today.
-
Wrong.
The Mccann's placed themselves in the public eye, and that includes their private lives.
In my opinion, a very foolish mistake to make.
wrong iyo
the fact they placed themselves in the public eye does not make them public figures...imo
-
I would not have mentioned him, if he had not advised me on the matter. One of his areas of expertise is in human rights cases and he works in relation to the E.C.H.R.
You will be pleased to here I will be seeing him later today.
But you have nothing to say from him that supports your view...thats the important thing
-
But you have nothing to say from him that supports your view...thats the important thing
Wrong Davel.
Believe what you wish. It won't change a thing.
-
We have all aired our opinions until someone has something new to bring to the discussion maybe have a break.
-
We have all aired our opinions until someone has something new to bring to the discussion maybe have a break.
we have all aired our views on many topics ...such as leaving the children....48 questions...and many more...but no request for a break there...why are you suggesting it here
-
Wrong Davel.
Believe what you wish. It won't change a thing.
logic would say that if you had some professional advice that supported your view you would want to share it...to show me where I am wrong. The information I have received is supportive of my view
-
Cornell Law School's site references this Nolo 'Plain English Law Dictionary" with this definition: nolo.com/dictionary/public-figure-term.html Public Figure: A person of great public interest or familiarity, such as a government official, politician, celebrity, business leader, movie star, or sports hero. Incorrect harmful statements published about a public figure cannot be the basis of a lawsuit for defamation unless there is proof that the writer or publisher intentionally defamed the person with malice
-
we have all aired our views on many topics ...such as leaving the children....48 questions...and many more...but no request for a break there...why are you suggesting it here
Because it isn’t getting anywhere.
-
Cornell Law School's site references this Nolo 'Plain English Law Dictionary" with this definition: nolo.com/dictionary/public-figure-term.html Public Figure: A person of great public interest or familiarity, such as a government official, politician, celebrity, business leader, movie star, or sports hero. Incorrect harmful statements published about a public figure cannot be the basis of a lawsuit for defamation unless there is proof that the writer or publisher intentionally defamed the person with malice
US based.
-
Because it isn’t getting anywhere.
neither are the other threads...48 questions...leaving the children alone...10 years and still exactly the same...imo
-
US based.
but it makes a point...something new to discuss on this thread...the SC judgeemnt makes a lot re the mccanns as public figures......is it justified
-
my opinion is that the mccanns right to reputation has suffered by amarals claims...defamation....thats where the claim will focus..imo... I also believe that absence of evidence is evidence of innocence...a claim denied by the SC
How did Amaral's claims damage the McCann's right to reputation? His book said nothing new. it had all been said before, as the first judge commented;
Now the thesis that the minor died accidentally in the apartment and that this fact was hidden by her parents, who spread and fed, in order to deceive, an hypothesis of abduction, is not new, there's nothing new neither in the book, in the interview or in the documentary.
One wonders then what is the difference between 1) asserting – as it was done at a certain step of the investigation or as many commentators do – that there are indices of accidental death, concealment of the corpse and simulation of crime and 2) supporting this view as did the defendant Goncalo Amaral in those three mediums.
Page 34 http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=6307.0
The only difference in my opinion is that the McCanns chose to sue him. What's the difference in your opinion?
-
How did Amaral's claims damage the McCann's right to reputation? His book said nothing new. it had all been said before, as the first judge commented;
Now the thesis that the minor died accidentally in the apartment and that this fact was hidden by her parents, who spread and fed, in order to deceive, an hypothesis of abduction, is not new, there's nothing new neither in the book, in the interview or in the documentary.
One wonders then what is the difference between 1) asserting – as it was done at a certain step of the investigation or as many commentators do – that there are indices of accidental death, concealment of the corpse and simulation of crime and 2) supporting this view as did the defendant Goncalo Amaral in those three mediums.
Page 34 http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=6307.0
The only difference in my opinion is that the McCanns chose to sue him. What's the difference in your opinion?
amaral claimed he could prove his thesis..that isnt in the files
-
wrong iyo
the fact they placed themselves in the public eye does not make them public figures...imo
I must confess that I hadn't given the 'public figure' expression much thought in this age of instant celebrity; a quick check of the Oxford Dictionary defines a public figure as "A person known of by the general public".
Therefore making the appeal court judges technically correct.
In common with the parents of all missing children, Kate and Gerry become known to the public ... I suppose the European Court might consider how prejudicial penalising them for that might be?
-
amaral claimed he could prove his thesis..that isnt in the files
It is nothing to do with Amaral anymore.
Please keep to the facts, such as they are.and
-
It is nothing to do with Amaral anymore.
Please keep to the facts, such as they are.and
It is to do with defamation by amaral.....
-
amaral claimed he could prove his thesis..that isnt in the files
How does that contribute to a claim that the state of Portugal breached their human rights?
-
How does that contribute to a claim that the state of Portugal breached their human rights?
Simple...the SC have allowed amaral to defame the McCanns
I would think amaral and his claims will figure a great deal in the action to ECHR
-
I must confess that I hadn't given the 'public figure' expression much thought in this age of instant celebrity; a quick check of the Oxford Dictionary defines a public figure as "A person known of by the general public".
Therefore making the appeal court judges technically correct.
In common with the parents of all missing children, Kate and Gerry become known to the public ... I suppose the European Court might consider how prejudicial penalising them for that might be?
The McCanns became much better known than other parents, largely due to their own willingness to inform and engage with the media.
-
How did Amaral's claims damage the McCann's right to reputation? His book said nothing new. it had all been said before, as the first judge commented;
Now the thesis that the minor died accidentally in the apartment and that this fact was hidden by her parents, who spread and fed, in order to deceive, an hypothesis of abduction, is not new, there's nothing new neither in the book, in the interview or in the documentary.
One wonders then what is the difference between 1) asserting – as it was done at a certain step of the investigation or as many commentators do – that there are indices of accidental death, concealment of the corpse and simulation of crime and 2) supporting this view as did the defendant Goncalo Amaral in those three mediums.
Page 34 http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=6307.0
The only difference in my opinion is that the McCanns chose to sue him. What's the difference in your opinion?
Not true. The book is littered with claims that have never been made before.
For instance. Only Amaral claims that Madeleine questioned her parents on the morning of 2nd May and that she didn't mention Sean when she spoke to them. IMO Both claims are untrue and gives the reader a completely false impression of what happened.
IMO Facts are distorted, vital facts are left out in order to change true meanings and the vindictive innuendo throughout is blatant.
If he'd read the files then the Judge must have had his tongue firmly in his cheek if he claimed that the book was based mainly on them. IMO The whole book was based on what Amaral WISHED was in the files.
How anyone can read his book AND the files and then claim that the contents of the book... 'had all been said before' ...is beyond my comprehension.
AIMHO
-
It is to do with defamation by amaral.....
No it isn't.
That has been explained to you before as well.
Ask John.
-
No it isn't.
That has been explained to you before as well.
Ask John.
The whole trial was about balancing the right to freedom of speech and the right to a good name....the SC judgement goes into detail about it...have you read the judgement
-
The McCanns became much better known than other parents, largely due to their own willingness to inform and engage with the media.
The only times the McCanns engaged with the media was to keep Madeleine's profile as high in the public mind as possible, as advised by the 'experts' - in order to give her the best chance of being found - and/or for reasons connected to charities.
IMO
-
No it isn't.
That has been explained to you before as well.
Ask John.
Explained by who...there are no experts on here only opinions..imo
-
The whole trial was about balancing the right to freedom of speech and the right to a good name....the SC judgement goes into detail about it...have you read the judgement
Yes.
The judgement will stand.
The attempt at the ECHR is against Portugal.
I find these attempts to continue to link to Amaral, risible.
-
Yes.
The judgement will stand.
The attempt at the ECHR is against Portugal.
I find these attempts to continue to link to Amaral, risible.
The action in the ECHR will be for damage to reputation by amaral....that's my opinion....you can disagree but cannot state it is wrong....it is merely your opinion it is wrong
I don't see why you find it risible....IMO amaral is connected to the action and his name and book will feature in the action at the ECHR..... Portugal have allowed amaral to defame the McCann's..imo...it's a simple as that
-
I find it risible that posters cannot see the link....what others claim could there be than damage to reputation by amaral
The claim will be against Portugal for allowing damage to reputation by amaral..imo
-
Fascinating.
-
Fascinating.
It's quite simple...just read the judgement and it is obvious
-
I find it risible that posters cannot see the link....what others claim could there be than damage to reputation by amaral
The claim will be against Portugal for allowing damage to reputation by amaral..imo
I agree, and trying to close down any mention of Amaral is not valid in a thread which came about as a direct consequence of the contents of his book IMO.
There doesn't appear to be any objection to the McCanns being mentioned - so why not Amaral?
AIMHO
-
If you look at the final page of the judgement it talks of balancing the freedom of expression and honour.....and comes down on the side of freedom of expression. Why some want to deny this is the case is strange
-
Not true. The book is littered with claims that have never been made before.
For instance. Only Amaral claims that Madeleine questioned her parents on the morning of 2nd May and that she didn't mention Sean when she spoke to them. Both claims are untrue and gives the reader a completely false impression of what happened.
Facts are distorted, vital facts are left out in order to change true meanings and the vindictive innuendo throughout is blatant.
If he'd read the files then the Judge must have had his tongue firmly in his cheek if he claimed that the book was based mainly on them. The whole book was based on what Amaral WISHED was in the files imo.
How anyone can read his book AND the files and then claim that the contents of the book... 'had all been said before' ...is beyond my comprehension.
Have you read the book yet G?
AIMHO
If you read my post again you will see that I'm not giving my opinion nor that of a male judge, but that of the (female) judge of the first instance Maria Emília de Melo e Castro. Have you read her judgement yet Benice?
In the proven facts;
(Items 27 & 28) It is proved that the facts in the book and in the documentary, concerning the investigation, are mostly facts that took place in the investigation and are documented as such.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=5931.0
Your opinion of the book is not, it seems, shared by any of the judges in the case.
-
The action in the ECHR will be for damage to reputation by amaral....that's my opinion....you can disagree but cannot state it is wrong....it is merely your opinion it is wrong
I don't see why you find it risible....amaral is connected to the action and his name and book will feature in the action at the ECHR..... Portugal have allowed amaral to defame the McCann's..imo...it's a simple as that
I can't see anything within the auspices of the ECHR that could apply to the McCann case. The very detailed decision by the Portuguese Appeal Court later upheld by the Portuguese Supreme Court left little leeway for any further appeal IMO. The McCanns attitude towards the Portuguese police sealed that deal in my opinion.
-
If you look at the final page of the judgement it talks of balancing the freedom of expression and honour.....and comes down on the side of freedom of expression. Why some want to deny this is the case is strange
Who is denying it (with cites)?
-
I can't see anything within the auspices of the ECHR that could apply to the McCann case. The very detailed decision by the Portuguese Appeal Court later upheld by the Portuguese Supreme Court left little leeway for any further appeal IMO. The McCanns attitude towards the Portuguese police sealed that deal in my opinion.
The ECHR will not be concerned with that attitude of the McCann's to the police imo that's a completely different issue....it may well have influenced the SC.
The SC have already said they have balanced amarals freedom of speech ....a human right.... against the McCann's honour....a human right. The SC decided in amarals favour....perhaps the ECHR won't and decide that the McCann's right to honour has not been respected by the courts
-
Who is denying it (with cites)?
Stephen for one is denying the case has anything to do with amaral...jassi for two
-
The ECHR will not be concerned with that attitude of the McCann's to the police imo that's a completely different interpretation issue....it may well have influenced the SC.
The SC have already said they have balanced amarals freedom of speech ....a human right.... against the McCann's honour....a human right. The SC decided in amarals favour....perhaps the ECHR won't and decide that the McCann's right to honour has not been respected by the courts
IMO The ECHR is not an appeal court, it doesn’t review national judgements it is interested in the process of justice and that that process follows Human Rights Rules.
-
IMO The ECHR is not an appeal court, it doesn’t review national judgements it is interested in the process of justice and that that process follows Human Rights Rules.
It can look at a judgement and decide it has denied a person's human rights...that's what it does
-
Stephen for one is denying the case has anything to do with amaral...jassi for two
The McCann’s original action had to do with Amaral
The McCann’s action at the ECHR is against Portugal and has nothing to do with Amaral.
All my opinion.
-
It can look at a judgement and decide it has denied a person's human rights...that's what it does
It will consider the process that was followed.
-
The McCann’s original action had to do with Amaral
The McCann’s action at the ECHR is against Portugal and has nothing to do with Amaral.
All my opinion.
The claim imo is that amarals book has affected their honour and that the Portuguese courts have allowed this
What claim do you think they are making
-
It can look at a judgement and decide it has denied a person's human rights...that's what it does
You mean like Madeleine's? I agree.
-
It will consider the process that was followed.
It will consider if the SC have violated their human rights
-
You mean like Madeleine's? I agree.
But Madeleine's rights are not in question in this action
-
You mean like Madeleine's? I agree.
As I understand the ECHR can only take action against a country...not a person
Yes only action for violation of human rights by a state party....
-
The McCanns became much better known than other parents, largely due to their own willingness to inform and engage with the media.
The situation Kate and Gerry found themselves facing in Portugal to disseminate information and to issue public appeals was far different to what happens when a child goes missing in Britain. Here the police take charge of everything acting as a barrier between media and relatives, in effect being press officers on their behalf.
I don't think I have seen any appeal for information in this country and most others which did not feature the attendance of uniformed police either making the appeal or in the background, supporting those who were.
(http://delivery.gettyimages.com/xr/153442303.jpg?v=1&c=IWSAsset&k=3&d=77BFBA49EF8789215ABF3343C02EA548D17210DC083BA1C5C56D1565939CE4D23B264558E5DAFDA1A55A1E4F32AD3138)
Right from the initial stages and throughout an investigation a police presence appears to be an essential ingredient and even many years ago official press conferences were given by police supported relatives against a background of official local police badges.
(http://c.files.bbci.co.uk/12473/production/_90176847_christineandbridgetpressconftvpkg120802.jpg)
Patrick Warren and David Spencer
Kate and Gerry did not receive that official police backup to publicise Madeleine and ask for public help. They had to do that for themselves. They had to put out publicity for Madeleine not against a backdrop featuring a police logo but one of the claim that they had called SKY NEWS before reporting Madeleine missing; and so their traducing began.
-
The claim imo is that amarals book has affected their honour and that the Portuguese courts have allowed this
What claim do you think they are making
The claim is simply that Portugal has disallowed their “right to honour”. What the court decides to look at in and round the case is up to them. They may just look at the judgement.
In my Opinion.
-
The situation Kate and Gerry found themselves facing in Portugal to disseminate information and to issue public appeals was far different to what happens when a child goes missing in Britain. Here the police take charge of everything acting as a barrier between media and relatives, in effect being press officers on their behalf.
I don't think I have seen any appeal for information in this country and most others which did not feature the attendance of uniformed police either making the appeal or in the background, supporting those who were.
(http://delivery.gettyimages.com/xr/153442303.jpg?v=1&c=IWSAsset&k=3&d=77BFBA49EF8789215ABF3343C02EA548D17210DC083BA1C5C56D1565939CE4D23B264558E5DAFDA1A55A1E4F32AD3138)
Right from the initial stages and throughout an investigation a police presence appears to be an essential ingredient and even many years ago official press conferences were given by police supported relatives against a background of official local police badges.
(http://c.files.bbci.co.uk/12473/production/_90176847_christineandbridgetpressconftvpkg120802.jpg)
Patrick Warren and David Spencer
Kate and Gerry did not receive that official police backup to publicise Madeleine and ask for public help. They had to do that for themselves. They had to put out publicity for Madeleine not against a backdrop featuring a police logo but one of the claim that they had called SKY NEWS before reporting Madeleine missing; and so their traducing began.
So you agree they became public figures?
-
The claim is simply that Portugal has disallowed their “right to honour”. What the court decides to look at in and round the case is up to them. They may just look at the judgement.
In my Opinion.
Has the application even been accepted or are we awaiting confirmation?
-
The claim is simply that Portugal has disallowed their “right to honour”. What the court decides to look at in and round the case is up to them. They may just look at the judgement.
In my Opinion.
The McCann's have a right to a good name....in order to see if this has been affected they will have to look at what amaral said about them
Amaral his book and the documentary are discussed in the judgement
-
So you agree they became public figures?
If you read my post previously citing the Oxford Dictionary you will see that is the definition.
If you read the post to which you have replied you will see exactly why the supreme court judges may have overstepped the mark by penalising Kate and Gerry McCann for becoming "public figures" as a result of becoming the parents of a missing child.
-
If you read my post previously citing the Oxford Dictionary you will see that is the definition.
If you read the post to which you have replied you will see exactly why the supreme court judges may have overstepped the mark by penalising Kate and Gerry McCann for becoming "public figures" as a result of becoming the parents of a missing child.
If I remember correctly, it said they were public figures by courting the media not by being the parents of a missing child.
-
If I remember correctly, it said they were public figures by courting the media not by being the parents of a missing child.
If they "courted the media" it was by dint of being the parents of a missing child whose human rights, interestingly, might well be considered to have been violated if there was police resistance to publicising her disappearance in the first instance.
-
The situation Kate and Gerry found themselves facing in Portugal to disseminate information and to issue public appeals was far different to what happens when a child goes missing in Britain. Here the police take charge of everything acting as a barrier between media and relatives, in effect being press officers on their behalf.
I don't think I have seen any appeal for information in this country and most others which did not feature the attendance of uniformed police either making the appeal or in the background, supporting those who were.
(http://delivery.gettyimages.com/xr/153442303.jpg?v=1&c=IWSAsset&k=3&d=77BFBA49EF8789215ABF3343C02EA548D17210DC083BA1C5C56D1565939CE4D23B264558E5DAFDA1A55A1E4F32AD3138)
Right from the initial stages and throughout an investigation a police presence appears to be an essential ingredient and even many years ago official press conferences were given by police supported relatives against a background of official local police badges.
(http://c.files.bbci.co.uk/12473/production/_90176847_christineandbridgetpressconftvpkg120802.jpg)
Patrick Warren and David Spencer
Kate and Gerry did not receive that official police backup to publicise Madeleine and ask for public help. They had to do that for themselves. They had to put out publicity for Madeleine not against a backdrop featuring a police logo but one of the claim that they had called SKY NEWS before reporting Madeleine missing; and so their traducing began.
It doesn't matter what the motive was, it's the result that counts.
-
The situation Kate and Gerry found themselves facing in Portugal to disseminate information and to issue public appeals was far different to what happens when a child goes missing in Britain. Here the police take charge of everything acting as a barrier between media and relatives, in effect being press officers on their behalf.
I don't think I have seen any appeal for information in this country and most others which did not feature the attendance of uniformed police either making the appeal or in the background, supporting those who were.
(http://delivery.gettyimages.com/xr/153442303.jpg?v=1&c=IWSAsset&k=3&d=77BFBA49EF8789215ABF3343C02EA548D17210DC083BA1C5C56D1565939CE4D23B264558E5DAFDA1A55A1E4F32AD3138)
Right from the initial stages and throughout an investigation a police presence appears to be an essential ingredient and even many years ago official press conferences were given by police supported relatives against a background of official local police badges.
(http://c.files.bbci.co.uk/12473/production/_90176847_christineandbridgetpressconftvpkg120802.jpg)
Patrick Warren and David Spencer
Kate and Gerry did not receive that official police backup to publicise Madeleine and ask for public help. They had to do that for themselves. They had to put out publicity for Madeleine not against a backdrop featuring a police logo but one of the claim that they had called SKY NEWS before reporting Madeleine missing; and so their traducing began.
".... claim that they had called SKY NEWS before reporting Madeleine missing"
From what I can tell, was that Rachael called the media when she used the computer in the Moyes residence.
Part of the purpose of doing the re-enactment was to discover who of the Tapas 9 called the media, and it was Rachael who bluntly refused to attend. Once I noticed this triangle of factoids I wondered if they were connected and Rachael feared being made arguido if she returned.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/RE_ENACTMENT.htm
"2x Suxxxxxxxx Gaxxxxx
London
SW xx 8xx
Date 23rd May 2008
Maria Luisa Nascimento Duarte
Ministerio Publico de Portimao
Av. Miguel Bombarda
Palacio da Justica
no 2 Piso
8501-960 Portimao
Reference : 3951283
Dear Sir,
I write with reference to the Notification dated 9th May 2008, which I received on Saturday 17th May 2008.
I am hereby informing you that I will not be attending the proposed Reconstruction in Portugal on 29th and 30th May 2008. I have reached this decision after considering advice from our Lawyers.
Yours faithfully,
Rachael Marimma Jean Mampilly.
-
I find the Supreme Court finding relating to the failed re-enactment unfairly blamed on the McCanns. They were arguidos at the time and had never refused to attend. It appears to be Jes Wilkins and Rachael who don't agree to attend. It was difficult to arrange a date that suited and the PJ seemed reluctant to issue summonses in order to force attendance.
Rachael appears to have no active role in the disappearance of Madeleine so I don't understand how her non-participation should have stopped the re-enactment happening.
It certainly should not be blamed on the McCanns and no consequence of the failure to perform the re-enactment should reflect on the guilt of the McCanns.
-
In one of Russell O'Brien's communication the issue of the News Media is raised.
"It is somewhat reassuring to see in writing from the PJ that there are "no suspicions over [us] regarding the commission of any criminal acts." However, we heard something similar in the weeks before Kate and Gerry were made arguidos! Additionally, the thrust of the PJ's closed questions during the re-interviews seemed only to focus on Kate and Gerry's culpability, suspicion about our written timeline or who involved the media."
Did they get the answer to that closed question "who involved the media"?
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/RE_ENACTMENT.htm
-
The claim imo is that amarals book has affected their honour and that the Portuguese courts have allowed this
What claim do you think they are making
That boat sailed in 2010 when it was ruled that the book did not infringe the McCanns rights.
None the less the McCanns elected to proceed with abortive litigation for damages.
-
That boat sailed in 2010 when it was ruled that the book did not infringe the McCanns rights.
None the less the McCanns elected to proceed with abortive litigation for damages.
The echr could possibly call the boat back,,,imo
-
That boat sailed in 2010 when it was ruled that the book did not infringe the McCanns rights.
None the less the McCanns elected to proceed with abortive litigation for damages.
If the ECHR eventually decide that the SC misintepreted european law in this case then it would be that the mccanns were right to bring the case and could not be expected to see that the portuguese courts would get things so wrong...al my opinion
-
If you read my post previously citing the Oxford Dictionary you will see that is the definition.
If you read the post to which you have replied you will see exactly why the supreme court judges may have overstepped the mark by penalising Kate and Gerry McCann for becoming "public figures" as a result of becoming the parents of a missing child.
The problem being how the ECtHR define "public figure" not how The OED defines public figure.
-
If the ECHR eventually decide that the SC misintepreted european law in this case then it would be that the mccanns were right to bring the case and could not be expected to see that the portuguese courts would get things so wrong...al my opinion
Would you like to explain what EU law has to do with the ECtHR?
"The European Union (EU) has decided not to be bound by the rulings of the European Court of Human Rights"
-
The echr could possibly call the boat back,,,imo
The ECtHR might also ask why an application was not made in 2010.
-
The ECtHR might also ask why an application was not made in 2010.
? The McCanns have to exhaust all domestic remedies first
That's why they challenged the SC decision...a hopeless but necessary exercise
-
The problem being how the ECtHR define "public figure" not how The OED defines public figure.
We agree on that one
-
Would you like to explain what EU law has to do with the ECtHR?
"The European Union (EU) has decided not to be bound by the rulings of the European Court of Human Rights"
I think you know what I mean....shall I just post ECHR law in future
-
I think you know what I mean....shall I just post ECHR law in future
Law ?
The decisions can't be imposed on the countries affected.
They can ignore them as they wish, and do.
-
Law ?
The decisions can't be imposed on the countries affected.
They can ignore them as they wish, and do.
what ruling has Portugal ignored...cute please
-
what ruling has Portugal ignored...cute please
We have dealt with this before.
The E.C.H.R. has no powers of enforcement.
So unless the country concerned applies the decision, It is effectively a toothless body.
So what laws are you talking about in a previous post ?
-
We have dealt with this before.
The E.C.H.R. has no powers of enforcement.
So unless the country concerned applies the decision, It is effectively a toothless body.
So what laws are you talking about in a previous post ?
Again.....when have Portugal ever not implemented a ruling by the ECHR
-
As I have never seen a case where Portugal refused to enforce a directive then I think it's reasonable to assume they would...imo
-
Again.....when have Portugal ever not implemented a ruling by the ECHR
Can you cite when they have ?
Remember I have a list of cases covering several decades.
Do you seriously imagine in your wildest imagination that the Portuguese are going to look kindly on the Mccann's after what they have done ?
Then of course, we still don't know a case was lodged with the E.C.H.R., let alone be accepted.
-
Can you cite when they have ?
Remember I have a list of cases covering several decades.
Do you seriously imagine in your wildest imagination that the Portuguese are going to look kindly on the Mccann's after what they have done ?
Then of course, we still don't know a case was lodged with the E.C.H.R., let alone be accepted.
As you raised the issue......do you have a cite for Portugal refusing to implement a directive....I don't think you do.....as there is no record of a directive not being enforced then imo it's unlikely to happen
-
? The McCanns have to exhaust all domestic remedies first
That's why they challenged the SC decision...a hopeless but necessary exercise
The "book banning case" and "the libel trial" were two independant actions.
-
The "book banning case" and "the libel trial" were two independant actions.
The judgement in the first instance banned the book
-
Can you cite when they have ?
Remember I have a list of cases covering several decades.
Do you seriously imagine in your wildest imagination that the Portuguese are going to look kindly on the Mccann's after what they have done ?
Then of course, we still don't know a case was lodged with the E.C.H.R., let alone be accepted.
What you are suggesting is the Portuguese opinion of the mccanns s might cause them not to apply the law without bias....I think that is probably libellous against the Portuguese courts
I would expect the courts to behave in an honourable manner
-
What you are suggesting is the Portuguese opinion of the mccanns s might cause them not to apply the law without bias....I think that is probably libellous against the Portuguese courts
Not the courts Davel.
The state of Portugal.
-
Not the courts Davel.
The state of Portugal.
When have they ever refused to enforce a directive....never it would seem
-
The judgement in the first instance banned the book
So?
-
So?
So they are related
-
If you read my post again you will see that I'm not giving my opinion nor that of a male judge, but that of the (female) judge of the first instance Maria Emília de Melo e Castro. Have you read her judgement yet Benice?
In the proven facts;
(Items 27 & 28) It is proved that the facts in the book and in the documentary, concerning the investigation, are mostly facts that took place in the investigation and are documented as such.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=5931.0
Your opinion of the book is not, it seems, shared by any of the judges in the case.
IMO it's not good enough - especially for Judges - to state that the facts in the book etc are MOSTLY facts that took place in the investigation and are documented as such.. How much is 'MOSTLY in their opinion? With no clarification It could be anything from 99% down to 51%.
AFAIAC this is the same as saying that as long as MOST of the book is factual and documented as such - then the fact that parts of it are NOT factual and documented doesn't matter - even if those parts have been presented to the public as if they were true documented facts and insodoing have damaged another person's reputation.
How anyone can agree that Judges using the 'MOSTLY.' criterion as proof that a book is not defamatory - is a fair and acceptable method is inexplicable to me.
The book is either libellous or it isn't. It can't be a little bit libellous.
I'm interested to hear your own opinion of the book G?
AIMHO
-
Any case, subject to it being accepted, and at the moment we do not know one was submitted, will be against the country of Portugal.
NOTHING AND NO ONE ELSE.
-
IMO it's not good enough - especially for Judges - to state that the facts in the book etc are MOSTLY facts that took place in the investigation and are documented as such.. How much is 'MOSTLY in their opinion? With no clarification It could be anything from 99% down to 51%.
AFAIAC this is the same as saying that as long as MOST of the book is factual and documented as such - then the fact that parts of it are NOT factual and documented doesn't matter - even if those parts have been presented to the public as if they were true documented facts and insodoing have damaged another person's reputation.
How anyone can agree that Judges using the 'MOSTLY.' criterion as proof that a book is not defamatory - is a fair and acceptable method is inexplicable to me.
The book is either libellous or it isn't. It can't be a little bit libellous.
I'm interested to hear your own opinion of the book G?
AIMHO
Have you forgotten that Amaral had a thesis, and that the PJ investigated the parents, A LOGICAL AND NORMAL STEP, especially with no evidence of abduction.
-
Any case, subject to it being accepted, and at the moment we do not know one was submitted, will be against the country of Portugal.
NOTHING AND NO ONE ELSE.
and will consider the balance of amarals right to free speech against the mccanns right to honour
-
and will consider the balance of amarals right to free speech against the mccanns right to honour
You have no idea what the E.C.H.R. might consider.
We don't know a case has been submitted, let alone accepted.
-
You have no idea what the E.C.H.R. might consider.
We don't know a case has been submitted, let alone accepted.
Its obvious from the SC judgement what will be considered...imo
-
and will consider the balance of amarals right to free speech against the mccanns right to honour
There is no right to honour.
-
Its obvious from the SC judgement what will be considered...imo
Have you seen the Mccann's hypothetical submissions to the E.C.H.R. ?
-
Have you seen the Mccann's hypothetical submissions to the E.C.H.R. ?
We have already discussed that
-
There is no right to honour.
Article 8 – Right to respect for private and family life
1. Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence.
2. There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.
-
There is no right to honour.
The SC judgement uses the word honour....semantics on your behalf...imo...the right to a good name .. honour....however you want to present it...
-
Article 8 – Right to respect for private and family life
1. Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence.
2. There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.
If you do some more research you will find this article is now used re the right to a good name...defamation... whatever you want to call it
-
The SC judgement uses the word honour....semantics on your behalf...imo...the right to a good name .. honour....however you want to present it...
There isn’t a right to a good name in the articles. They have to be working on Article 8, nothing else goes anywhere near. As above, that talks about respect for private life which the judgement said they had sacrificed by their eagerness to engage with the media.
-
There isn’t a right to a good name in the articles. They have to be working on Article 8, nothing else goes anywhere near. As above, that talks about respect for private life which the judgement said they had sacrificed by their eagerness to engage with the media.
Google article 8 and defemation
-
Google article 8 and defemation
Article 8 has already been posted and read.
-
Article 8 has already been posted and read.
Article 8 covers defamation
-
Article 8 covers defamation
You do realize by know, you have no chance whatsoever of convincing me of that.
The Portuguese case is done and dusted.
-
Article 8 covers defamation
It is used to cover a number of things. Invoking it is not straightforward.
-
It is used to cover a number of things. Invoking it is not straightforward.
I wouldn't expect it be straight forward
-
IMO it's not good enough - especially for Judges - to state that the facts in the book etc are MOSTLY facts that took place in the investigation and are documented as such.. How much is 'MOSTLY in their opinion? With no clarification It could be anything from 99% down to 51%.
AFAIAC this is the same as saying that as long as MOST of the book is factual and documented as such - then the fact that parts of it are NOT factual and documented doesn't matter - even if those parts have been presented to the public as if they were true documented facts and insodoing have damaged another person's reputation.
How anyone can agree that Judges using the 'MOSTLY.' criterion as proof that a book is not defamatory - is a fair and acceptable method is inexplicable to me.
The book is either libellous or it isn't. It can't be a little bit libellous.
I'm interested to hear your own opinion of the book G?
AIMHO
8@??)(
Brilliant post Benice. I thought exactly the same but couldn't have worded it as clearly as you did
-
IMO it's not good enough - especially for Judges - to state that the facts in the book etc are MOSTLY facts that took place in the investigation and are documented as such.. How much is 'MOSTLY in their opinion? With no clarification It could be anything from 99% down to 51%.
AFAIAC this is the same as saying that as long as MOST of the book is factual and documented as such - then the fact that parts of it are NOT factual and documented doesn't matter - even if those parts have been presented to the public as if they were true documented facts and insodoing have damaged another person's reputation.
How anyone can agree that Judges using the 'MOSTLY.' criterion as proof that a book is not defamatory - is a fair and acceptable method is inexplicable to me.
The book is either libellous or it isn't. It can't be a little bit libellous.
I'm interested to hear your own opinion of the book G?
AIMHO
Well said Benice.
The important bits in my opinion were not true.
-
You do realize by know, you have no chance whatsoever of convincing me of that.
The Portuguese case is done and dusted.
I'm not trying to convince you of anything...just giving my opinions
-
Are we saying we cannot take as fact that Eddie did not discover a body at Jersey....I did think that was a fact that no body was found
It is a fact that no cadavers were found in Jersey.
https://www.gov.je/SiteCollectionDocuments/Government%20and%20administration/R%20WiltshireOperationHavenRedacted%2020081112%20JN.pdf
-
Human bones were found.
It is a fact that no cadavers were found.
The bones were historic and the milk teeth also found were just that ... milk teeth.
The 'coconut' was not a child's skull.
Please read the link if you can't accept my word for it, thank you.
https://www.gov.je/SiteCollectionDocuments/Government%20and%20administration/R%20WiltshireOperationHavenRedacted%2020081112%20JN.pdf
-
Polite reminder ... we are off topic ... the topic is 'McCanns appeal to the European Court of Human Rights'
-
Polite reminder ... we are off topic ... the topic is 'McCanns appeal to the European Court of Human Rights'
Beat me to it.
-
Then physician heal thyself,quick enough to delete my post.
-
So, is there actually any proof the Mccanns have appealed ?
-
So, is there actually any proof the Mccanns have appealed ?
No,except for some tittle tattle in a newspaper article from a man who the head of the Portuguese police federation was less than complimentary about.
-
No,except for some tittle tattle in a newspaper article from a man who the head of the Portuguese police federation was less than complimentary about.
After all, merely because it appears in the MSM, doesn't make it true.
-
So, is there actually any proof the Mccanns have appealed ?
Nothing except for a quote from Clarence in a newspaper.
-
Nothing except for a quote from Clarence in a newspaper.
Unless he personally hand the application to the ECHR, he will only know what he was told.
-
The fact that Clarence said the application had been acknowledged leads me to believe that an application has been made
-
I know there was a time frame within the application had to be submitted ... having acknowledged it ... I think it will take time for the wheels of bureaucracy to grind over a consideration and decision period to determine whether the case will be heard or not.
One case won't take precedence over another. There will be a queue of cases every one of which will be of paramount importance to the people who have brought them.
No body is going to leap frog to the top of that queue. So the virtue of patience will have to be the order of the day.
-
I know there was a time frame within the application had to be submitted ... having acknowledged it ... I think it will take time for the wheels of bureaucracy to grind over a consideration and decision period to determine whether the case will be heard or not.
One case won't take precedence over another. There will be a queue of cases every one of which will be of paramount importance to the people who have brought them.
No body is going to leap frog to the top of that queue. So the virtue of patience will have to be the order of the day.
Well once again we are dependent on the follow through for as I do believe the McCanns have a case.
I find the Supreme Court finding relating to the failed re-enactment unfairly blamed the failure on the McCanns. The McCanns were arguidos at the time and had never refused to attend. It appears to be Jes Wilkins and Rachael who don't agree to attend.
It was difficult to arrange a date that suited and the PJ seemed reluctant to issue summonses in order to force attendance.
Rachael appears to have no active role in the disappearance of Madeleine so I don't understand how her non-participation should have stopped the re-enactment happening.
It certainly should not be blamed on the McCanns and no consequence of the failure to perform the re-enactment should reflect on the guilt of the McCanns.
-
The judgement in the first instance banned the book
It was a mystery why the the judge in a lower court thought she could overturn a previous decision made by a higher court.
She found out in quicktime she couldn't.
-
It was a mystery why the the judge in a lower court thought she could overturn a previous decision made by a higher court.
She found out in quicktime she couldn't.
That may be very pertinent to the ECHR application.....it shows the claim is not manifestly ill founded if a Portuguese judge felt it had merit
-
That may be very pertinent to the ECHR application.....it shows the claim is not manifestly ill founded if a Portuguese judge felt it had merit
In reality, the Judge who got it wrong.
'felt' is not good enough. The Supreme Court did It's job by Portuguese Law.
After all, upholding the law is important, is it not.
-
In reality, the Judge who got it wrong.
'felt' is not good enough. The Supreme Court did It's job by Portuguese Law.
After all, upholding the law is important, is it not.
It absolutely is and that's why we have the ECHR to appeal to if necessary
-
It absolutely is and that's why we have the ECHR to appeal to if necessary
Who is this 'we' ?
-
Who is this 'we' ?
Its self explanatory
-
Its self explanatory
Not really.
-
Not really.
Ok
We...is all those who have recourse to the ECHR
-
Ok
We...is all those who have recourse to the ECHR
I have already explained that the E.C.H.R. is effectively toothless.
-
I have already explained that the E.C.H.R. is effectively toothless.
It....and I have explained that we....that's you and me....do not know of a case where Portugal has not applied the directive if the ECHR...imo..it is far from toothless...as you will see..imo
-
It....and I have explained that we....that's you and me....do not know of a case where Portugal has not applied the directive if the ECHR...imo..it is far from toothless...as you will see..imo
How many has Portugal complied with ?
That is the over side of the coin.
Again, where is the evidence a case has been registered ?
Only asking.
-
How many has Portugal complied with ?
That is the over side of the coin.
Again, where is the evidence a case has been registered ?
Only asking.
The evidence is the statement by Clarence
-
The evidence is the statement by Clarence
That is hearsay.
Let's have some proof a case was submitted
Bearing in mind, we were told a few months ago, that the Mccanns would not submit a claim..
-
That is hearsay.
Let's have some proof.
You asked for evidence and I have given it to you....
-
That is hearsay.
Let's have some proof a case was submitted
Bearing in mind, we were told a few months ago, that the Mccanns would not submit a claim..
[/quotread that article again
-
That is hearsay.
Let's have some proof a case was submitted
Bearing in mind, we were told a few months ago, that the Mccanns would not submit a claim..
[/quotread that article again
I don't need to.
-
I don't need to.
I reread it and it's not as definite as you thiNk
-
I wonder why this thread has gone quiet.
-
I wonder why this thread has gone quiet.
Probably because there is no official statement regarding the current state of play.
-
Probably because there is no official statement regarding the current state of play.
Let alone proof of the lodging of a case
-
So now we have proof that the case has, been lodged
-
So now we have proof that the case has, been lodged
Where, where? Oh my God, i can hardly bear the suspense. Snort.
-
So now we have proof that the case has, been lodged
We only have their word for it.
-
We only have their word for it.
Don't be such a wimp. It must be Troo.
-
We only have their word for it.
It's reported in the accounts... It's a fact IMO
-
It's reported in the accounts... It's a fact IMO
It is a fact it is written about in the accounts; agreed.
-
It is a fact it is written about in the accounts; agreed.
If it's stated in the accounts then it is ridiculous to suggest an action has not been made
-
So now we have proof that the case has, been lodged
We do not have such proof.
Proof would be sight of the documents lodged with the ECHR.
So what do we have then? There is a description for it.
-
We do not have such proof.
Proof would be sight of the documents lodged with the ECHR.
So what do we have then? There is a description for it.
On the balance of probability... Which is a level of proof... An action has been lodged.
-
On the balance of probability... Which is a level of proof... An action has been lodged.
Which is all it says.
-
Which is all it says.
yes it confirms the statement by clarence.....that an application has been lodged
-
yes it confirms the statement by clarence.....that an application has been lodged
True confirmation would be from the ECHR but do they list all those who lodge applications.
-
True confirmation would be from the ECHR but do they list all those who lodge applications.
They must have a list and I see no reason why they wouldn't publish it.
Perhaps they restrict it to those who get through to the second round and those who fall at the first hurdle disappear without trace.
-
They must have a list and I see no reason why they wouldn't publish it.
Perhaps they restrict it to those who get through to the second round and those who fall at the first hurdle disappear without trace.
I don't know it is all news to me what the ECHR do.
-
I don't know it is all news to me what the ECHR do.
They shatter a lot of people's hopes and dreams.
-
They shatter a lot of people's hopes and dreams.
Reminds me I need to go back to bed!
-
True confirmation would be from the ECHR but do they list all those who lodge applications.
If you want to be in the same state of denial as the sceptics so be it...it really doesnt matter. Its quite obvious that an action has been lodged with the ECHR but Im not surprised that some dont want to accept it. On another thread it is taken for granted that Mr Smith has made a certain statement to O'doherty yet we have no record of what smith actually said only the journalists word for it...yet posters have accepted it as the absolute truth...the double staandards comes as no surprise
-
True confirmation would be from the ECHR but do they list all those who lodge applications.
yet the same doubters accept 60/80 % as positive confirmation
-
yet the same doubters accept 60/80 % as positive confirmation
... and from a guy who took 2 weeks to come forward with the most vital information.
-
Better late than never don't you think?
Though Smithman might not think that.
-
If you want to be in the same state of denial as the sceptics so be it...it really doesnt matter. Its quite obvious that an action has been lodged with the ECHR but Im not surprised that some dont want to accept it. On another thread it is taken for granted that Mr Smith has made a certain statement to O'doherty yet we have no record of what smith actually said only the journalists word for it...yet posters have accepted it as the absolute truth...the double staandards comes as no surprise
I expect the McCanns have applied to the ECHR, but I don't accept that a note in their Y/E accounts is evidence.
The BBC definitely changed their Panorama recording to cut out what they said about the Smiths. I can think of no reason why they would do that except the reason given by Gemma O'Doherty. Those casting doubt on her story need to explain that in order to prove her wrong.
-
If it's stated in the accounts then it is ridiculous to suggest an action has not been made
I agree but in my opinion it is a futile application.
-
I expect the McCanns have applied to the ECHR, but I don't accept that a note in their Y/E accounts is evidence.
The BBC definitely changed their Panorama recording to cut out what they said about the Smiths. I can think of no reason why they would do that except the reason given by Gemma O'Doherty. Those casting doubt on her story need to explain that in order to prove her wrong.
Making an application to the ECHR is free and involves merely answering preset question in a booklet. It is not a complicated process, any competent individual could do so, it does not require a lawyer. Making such an application is no guarantee that it will progress to any stage.
As for the Smith sighting, I think it is time Martin Smith spoke out and reveal his true thoughts.
-
I agree but in my opinion it is a futile application.
Have you done much research...I have and I would say they have a fairly strong case..On what grounds do you think they havent
-
Making an application to the ECHR is free and involves merely answering preset question in a booklet. It is not a complicated process, any competent individual could do so, it does not require a lawyer. Making such an application is no guarantee that it will progress to any stage.
As for the Smith sighting, I think it is time Martin Smith spoke out and reveal his true thoughts.
I would welcome MS giving his true thoughts...but thats all they are ...his thoughts...nothing more
-
I expect the McCanns have applied to the ECHR, but I don't accept that a note in their Y/E accounts is evidence.
The BBC definitely changed their Panorama recording to cut out what they said about the Smiths. I can think of no reason why they would do that except the reason given by Gemma O'Doherty. Those casting doubt on her story need to explain that in order to prove her wrong.
of course its evidence...you are confusing evidence and proof...
-
of course its evidence...you are confusing evidence and proof...
So easily done; especially as Roger's Brontosaurus offers "proof" as a synonym of "evidence".
We has a difference of opinion it seems.
Maybe you will apprise us why you believe the thesaurus to be in error?
-
So easily done; especially as Roger's Brontosaurus offers "proof" as a synonym of "evidence".
We has a difference of opinion it seems.
Maybe you will apprise us why you believe the thesaurus to be in error?
So you don't know the difference either
-
I expect the McCanns have applied to the ECHR, but I don't accept that a note in their Y/E accounts is evidence.
The BBC definitely changed their Panorama recording to cut out what they said about the Smiths. I can think of no reason why they would do that except the reason given by Gemma O'Doherty. Those casting doubt on her story need to explain that in order to prove her wrong.
The only clarification required is from the person making unsubstantiated claims ~ Ms O'Doherty. A terribly simple process since she does not have to protect her sources which have already been released by her into the public domain.
Without provenance I remain unconvinced by her and her allegations. Not that it really makes one whit of difference to anything other than ~ in my opinion ~ her professional reputation.
-
The only clarification required is from the person making unsubstantiated claims ~ Ms O'Doherty. A terribly simple process since she does not have to protect her sources which have already been released by her into the public domain.
Without provenance I remain unconvinced by her and her allegations. Not that it really makes one whit of difference to anything other than ~ in my opinion ~ her professional reputation.
No doubt she will be devastated to learn that
-
of course its evidence...you are confusing evidence and proof...
It's evidence that they say they've applied to the ECHR, not that they have.
Gemma O'Doherty said the BBC agreed to cut their comment about the Smiths from their video and they did so. Unless you have evidence that they did it for another reason you can't prove her wrong.
-
So easily done; especially as Roger's Brontosaurus offers "proof" as a synonym of "evidence".
We has a difference of opinion it seems.
Maybe you will apprise us why you believe the thesaurus to be in error?
Synonym - definition "a word or phrase that means exactly or nearly the same as another word or phrase in the same language, for example shut is a synonym of close".
So if you are confusing proof with evidence they might be close but not exactly the same but nearly the same.
What is the slight difference?
-
No doubt she will be devastated to learn that
I think you have missed the point Brietta is trying to maintain GO'D's reputation.
-
I think you have missed the point Brietta is trying to maintain GO'D's reputation.
How very kind.
-
It's evidence that they say they've applied to the ECHR, not that they have.
Gemma O'Doherty said the BBC agreed to cut their comment about the Smiths from their video and they did so. Unless you have evidence that they did it for another reason you can't prove her wrong.
its proof that they say they have applied...you are confusing evidence and proof again
-
No doubt she will be devastated to learn that
I'm quite sure Ms O'Doherty doesn't know I exist nor would she be interested in my opinion if she did.
However it is not my opinion she needs to worry about; there are those with opinions of far more relevance to her who may be wondering about her twitter activities versus her credibility.
I wonder if it will really be worth it for her in the long term.
-
So easily done; especially as Roger's Brontosaurus offers "proof" as a synonym of "evidence".
We has a difference of opinion it seems.
Maybe you will apprise us why you believe the thesaurus to be in error?
thesauras.com gives not guilty as a synonym of innocent...as does Rogets...in the light of this would you like to reconsider your response to my post...looks like Im right and roger and you are wrong
-
I'm quite sure Ms O'Doherty doesn't know I exist nor would she be interested in my opinion if she did.
However it is not my opinion she needs to worry about; there are those with opinions of far more relevance to her who may be wondering about her twitter activities versus her credibility.
I wonder if it will really be worth it for her in the long term.
There seems to be only one set of people who are questioning her truthfulness.
-
thesauras.com gives not guilty as a synonym of innocent...as does Rogets...in the light of this would you like to reconsider your response to my post...looks like Im right and roger and you are wrong
We were discussing evidence and proof.
NOT "not guilty" and "innocent". However given that innocent and guilty are strict terms the brontosaurus is correct and you my son have been rogered with the rough end of the pineappple.... @)(++(*
-
There seems to be only one set of people who are questioning her truthfulness.
If you are content to accept every unsubstantiated claim this individual makes without question ... why do you feel it necessary to question the veracity of forum members by demanding cites for everything posted on the forum?
-
If you are content to accept every unsubstantiated claim this individual makes without question ... why do you feel it necessary to question the veracity of forum members by demanding cites for everything posted on the forum?
Isn't it you who does that Brietta ?
Anyway outwith the question of Miss O'Doherty's credibility what we do now know for sure is when the Panorama 10th Anniversary programme was aired it claimed that Martin Smith had retracted his identification of Gerry and that has now been cut from the programme. Whether it was as a result of the actions of Miss O'Doherty, Martin Smith or Uncle Tom Cobbley it is a fact and the only logical inference that can be drawn from the BBC's actions is that they have now conceded that Martin Smith did not retract his identification.
-
Isn't it you who does that Brietta ?
Anyway outwith the question of Miss O'Doherty's credibility what we do now know for sure is when the Panorama 10th Anniversary programme was aired it claimed that Martin Smith had retracted his identification of Gerry and that has now been cut from the programme. Whether it was as a result of the actions of Miss O'Doherty, Martin Smith or Uncle Tom Cobbley it is a fact and the only logical inference that can be drawn from the BBC's actions is that they have now conceded that Martin Smith did not retract his identification.
Ensuring the probity of comments made is what mods do, don't you know?
Just as you wouldn't be forced into guesswork regarding what the BBC programme makers did or did not do if Ms Doherty had been able to substantiate the claim she made.
Which apparently she cannot do.
Despite the big build up and the expectations raised I'm afraid no provenance equals, in my opinion, another great big zero and a total waste of space.
-
Ensuring the probity of comments made is what mods do, don't you know?
Just as you wouldn't be forced into guesswork regarding what the BBC programme makers did or did not do if Ms Doherty had been able to substantiate the claim she made.
Which apparently she cannot do.
Despite the big build up and the expectations raised I'm afraid no provenance equals, in my opinion, another great big zero and a total waste of space.
It was a bit pathetic, wasn't it. Even I hoped for something a trifle more riveting.
-
We were discussing evidence and proof.
NOT "not guilty" and "innocent". However given that innocent and guilty are strict terms the brontosaurus is correct and you my son have been rogered with the rough end of the pineappple.... @)(++(*
lets discuss evidence and proof...you claim they have the same meaning and cite roget in support...so...take the statement...
the smith sighting is evidence but not proof that Gerry was seen carrying a child that night...
if evidence and proof have the same meaning we should be able to interchange them...
so......
the smith sighting is proof but not evidence that gerry was seen carrying a child that night
doesnt work does it...because they ahve different meanings
-
lets discuss evidence and proof...you claim they have the same meaning and cite roget in support...so...take the statement...
the smith sighting is evidence but not proof that Gerry was seen carrying a child that night...
if evidence and proof have the same meaning we should be able to interchange them...
so......
the smith sighting is proof but not evidence that gerry was seen carrying a child that night
doesnt work does it...because they ahve different meanings
That is rather strange considering evidence and proof are synonyms yet they aren't transferable as you have demonstrated.
-
If you are content to accept every unsubstantiated claim this individual makes without question ... why do you feel it necessary to question the veracity of forum members by demanding cites for everything posted on the forum?
We have cites for Ms O’Doherty’s statements about the Smith’s as Ms O’Doherty is not a member of this forum suggesting that she needs to provide cites is somewhat bizarre.
-
We have cites for Ms O’Doherty’s statements about the Smith’s as Ms O’Doherty is not a member of this forum suggesting that she needs to provide cites is somewhat bizarre.
Brietta has not asked for a cite...what she is saying is that posters who normally refuse to accept statemnts without cites accept an unsubstantiated quote by a journalist as fact...
-
It was a bit pathetic, wasn't it. Even I hoped for something a trifle more riveting.
Still, it's managed to attract over 1000 posts on here, so clearly some people just can't leave it alone
-
Brietta has not asked for a cite...what she is saying is that posters who normally refuse to accept statemnts without cites accept an unsubstantiated quote by a journalist as fact...
And how many times are we told that others involved in the case have no requirement to answer questions that are asked on the forum that would clear up or confirm issues?
-
And how many times are we told that others involved in the case have no requirement to answer questions that are asked on the forum that would clear up or confirm issues?
no one is obliged to answer any questions
-
no one is obliged to answer any questions
Not even on this Forum.
-
Mr Smith's evidence has remained the same throughout. Somehow an unsubstantiated rumour that he had changed his mind became, for some, the truth.
Some are arguing that Gemma O'Doherty's story is unsubstantiated also. I can think of reasons why certain people might want to suggest that Smith had changed his mind and feed that story to the media. I can think of no reason why a lone journalist, 5 years later, would want to invent a story refuting that rumour.
It doesn't actually matter anyway, because the truth is that Mr Smith made his position perfectly clear in October 2013 and there's absolutely no evidence that he ever changed it;
Commenting on the Crimewatch documentary which was broadcast on Monday night he added: “The only new thing in the investigation is the elimination of Jane Tanner’s sighting.
“Apart from that from our point of view everything else remains the same in relation to what we said to the police and the media at the time. We have nothing more to add.”
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/madeleine-mccann-key-witness-accuses-2433328
-
Mr Smith's evidence has remained the same throughout. Somehow an unsubstantiated rumour that he had changed his mind became, for some, the truth.
Some are arguing that Gemma O'Doherty's story is unsubstantiated also. I can think of reasons why certain people might want to suggest that Smith had changed his mind and feed that story to the media. I can think of no reason why a lone journalist, 5 years later, would want to invent a story refuting that rumour.
It doesn't actually matter anyway, because the truth is that Mr Smith made his position perfectly clear in October 2013 and there's absolutely no evidence that he ever changed it;
Commenting on the Crimewatch documentary which was broadcast on Monday night he added: “The only new thing in the investigation is the elimination of Jane Tanner’s sighting.
“Apart from that from our point of view everything else remains the same in relation to what we said to the police and the media at the time. We have nothing more to add.”
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/madeleine-mccann-key-witness-accuses-2433328
Doesn't matter if the mccanns ate not suspects then the investigators must feel Smith was mistaken
-
Mr Smith's evidence has remained the same throughout. Somehow an unsubstantiated rumour that he had changed his mind became, for some, the truth.
Some are arguing that Gemma O'Doherty's story is unsubstantiated also. I can think of reasons why certain people might want to suggest that Smith had changed his mind and feed that story to the media. I can think of no reason why a lone journalist, 5 years later, would want to invent a story refuting that rumour.
It doesn't actually matter anyway, because the truth is that Mr Smith made his position perfectly clear in October 2013 and there's absolutely no evidence that he ever changed it;
Commenting on the Crimewatch documentary which was broadcast on Monday night he added: “The only new thing in the investigation is the elimination of Jane Tanner’s sighting.
“Apart from that from our point of view everything else remains the same in relation to what we said to the police and the media at the time. We have nothing more to add.”
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/madeleine-mccann-key-witness-accuses-2433328
Mr Smith and his son cooperated with detectives employed by Kate and Gerry McCann, in the production of efits of the man they passed in the street on the 3rd May 2007.
Why would Mr Smith waste time doing that if he was sure of his identification ... everyone by that time knew what Gerry McCann looked like in still, movie and sound. All he had to do was pick a photo ... any photo ... from that week's editions. But instead he chose to produce an efit.
The proof of the pudding is in the eating thereof and in my opinion Mr Smith should perhaps consider doing what Angelo suggests and go public.
Just as in my opinion, the damaged Ms O'Doherty should attempt to retrieve something resembling professionalism rather than digging a deeper trench in the bog into which she has mired herself.
-
Anyway ... discussion of the Ms O'Doherty circus has no locus on the ECHR thread. So slapped knuckles to me for that ... and may we all get back to the right topic on the right thread, please.
Congrats to Davel for making the attempt to stay on track in the main. 8(0(*
-
Mr Smith and his son cooperated with detectives employed by Kate and Gerry McCann, in the production of efits of the man they passed in the street on the 3rd May 2007.
Why would Mr Smith waste time doing that if he was sure of his identification ... everyone by that time knew what Gerry McCann looked like in still, movie and sound. All he had to do was pick a photo ... any photo ... from that week's editions. But instead he chose to produce an efit.
The proof of the pudding is in the eating thereof and in my opinion Mr Smith should perhaps consider doing what Angelo suggests and go public.
Just as in my opinion, the damaged Ms O'Doherty should attempt to retrieve something resembling professionalism rather than digging a deeper trench in the bog into which she has mired herself.
If in doubt attack the source.
-
Anyway ... discussion of the Ms O'Doherty circus has no locus on the ECHR thread. So slapped knuckles to me for that ... and may we all get back to the right topic on the right thread, please.
Congrats to Davel for making the attempt to stay on track in the main. 8(0(*
Well as he was the one that took it off in the first place ...
-
If in doubt attack the source.
What source would that be? We've not been granted the privilege of seeing one yet, have we? Now ... topic please.
-
Well as he was the one that took it off in the first place ...
I feel the Mccanns have a very strong case...perhaps thats why sceptics do not wish to discuss it here.....
-
What source would that be? We've not been granted the privilege of seeing one yet, have we? Now ... topic please.
You mean this isn’t attacking a source.
Just as in my opinion, the damaged Ms O'Doherty should attempt to retrieve something resembling professionalism rather than digging a deeper trench in the bog into which she has mired herself.
-
I feel the Mccanns have a very strong case...perhaps thats why sceptics do not wish to discuss it here.....
No reason to take this thread off topic.
-
Ensuring the probity of comments made is what mods do, don't you know?
Just as you wouldn't be forced into guesswork regarding what the BBC programme makers did or did not do if Ms Doherty had been able to substantiate the claim she made.
Which apparently she cannot do.
Despite the big build up and the expectations raised I'm afraid no provenance equals, in my opinion, another great big zero and a total waste of space.
The claim has been substantiated. The misleading claim has been cut from the BBC programme. What did you expect to happen ?
In fact she's done rather better than a certain Mr A Summers who failed even to mention in his 'forensically detailed' investigative tome Martin Smith's identification of Gerry.
-
Anyway no more Ms O’Doherty on here.
-
No reason to take this thread off topic.
Well it seems no one wants to discuss it... Perhaps, it's, a, bitter pill for sceptics to swallow
-
Well it seems no one wants to discuss it... Perhaps, it's, a, bitter pill for sceptics to swallow
It seems that way to me. They were all so sure that this was never going to happen.
It isn't good idea to be certain sure about anything in this case.
-
Anyway no more Ms O’Doherty on here.
Quite right. The statement in the Year End accounts, despite the arguments, doesn't prove that an application has been made to the ECHR. That's not to say it hasn't, just that there's no proof that it has.
My opinion is that an application has been made because I think the McCanns are now at war with the Portuguese Judiciary as well as with Amaral.
-
It seems that way to me. They were all so sure that this was never going to happen.
It isn't good idea to be certain sure about anything in this case.
We'll be more certain when we see a case number for this appeal
-
We'll be more certain when we see a case number for this appeal
I'll be more certain when I see proof of a lot of things.
-
I'll be more certain when I see proof of a lot of things.
I'll drink to that 8((()*/
-
I'll drink to that 8((()*/
Cite please.
-
I'll have to look in my crystal glass and see i I can find one ?{)(**
-
Quite right. The statement in the Year End accounts, despite the arguments, doesn't prove that an application has been made to the ECHR. That's not to say it hasn't, just that there's no proof that it has.
My opinion is that an application has been made because I think the McCanns are now at war with the Portuguese Judiciary as well as with Amaral.
Good to see you are now using the correct word... Prove
It is of course evidence an application has been made and I would say very strong evidence. The mccanns are not at war with anyone. Just, exercising their right to appeal to the ECHR
-
Good to see you are now using the correct word... Prove
It is of course evidence an application has been made and I would say very strong evidence. The mccanns are not at war with anyone. Just, exercising their right to appeal to the ECHR
I think you should cease pontificating about proof and evidence because you are clearly confused yourself.
Your post 971
So now we have proof that the case has, been lodged
-
I think you should cease pontificating about proof and evidence because you are clearly confused yourself.
Your post 971
So now we have proof that the case has, been lodged
I would say we do have proof...on the balance of probablities...thats a reasonable statement...yours that the statement in the accounts was not evidence...is plainly wrong...then we have alice who wants to argue taht evidence and proof are the same thing...which I have shown to be wrong
-
I would say we do have proof...on the balance of probablities...thats a reasonable statement...yours that the statement in the accounts was not evidence...is plainly wrong...then we have alice who wants to argue taht evidence and proof are the same thing...which I have shown to be wrong
If you think the statement amounts to 'proof', as in your first post, then why did you alter it to 'evidence' later? On the balance of probabilities I take that to demonstrate your uncertainty about the nature of the statement.
My position remains the same. The statement in the accounts is evidence that the McCanns claim to have applied to the ECHR. It isn't proof that they have.
-
Well it seems no one wants to discuss it... Perhaps, it's, a, bitter pill for sceptics to swallow
Whats there to discuss,a vague passing of a mention on audited accounts pertaining to the year 2016/2017 which would be before a decision was made was it not,strange set of affairs imo.
-
Whats there to discuss,a vague passing of a mention on audited accounts pertaining to the year 2016/2017 which would be before a decision was made was it not,strange set of affairs imo.
It is not vague it is quite precise.......The accounts may pertain to 16/17 but were drawn up in 17 when thedecision had been taken
-
Quite right. The statement in the Year End accounts, despite the arguments, doesn't prove that an application has been made to the ECHR. That's not to say it hasn't, just that there's no proof that it has.
My opinion is that an application has been made because I think the McCanns are now at war with the Portuguese Judiciary as well as with Amaral.
if your opinion is that an application has been made then you must have seen compelling evidence/proof that it has been made. on what basis do you believe that the application is now a fact
-
It is not vague it is quite precise.......The accounts may pertain to 16/17 but were drawn up in 17 when thedecision had been taken
Whats it to do with the accounts? unless the McCanns have used them for their litigation.
-
Whats it to do with the accounts? unless the McCanns have used them for their litigation.
I have no idea...thats why I referred to the statement as interesting
-
if your opinion is that an application has been made then you must have seen compelling evidence/proof that it has been made. on what basis do you believe that the application is now a fact
I’m sure it is an opinion based on a demonstrated tendency by the McCanns never to know when they are beaten. IMO
-
Interesting piece of info imo.
May 2nd 2017 to Jan 28 of this year, 1259 case's communicated to the echr, 12 against Portugal,not a mention of the McCanns.
https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng#{"documentcollectionid2":["COMMUNICATEDCASES"]}
-
I’m sure it is an opinion based on a demonstrated tendency by the McCanns never to know when they are beaten. IMO
I'm sure gun it is quite capable of answering the question herself... If you think that why do you think many posters doubted they would make a claim
I'm sure they have applied because they have a very very strong case
-
Interesting piece of info imo.
May 2nd 2017 to Jan 28 of this year, 1259 case's communicated to the echr, 12 against Portugal,not a mention of the McCanns.
https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng#{"documentcollectionid2":["COMMUNICATEDCASES"]}
At a quick look these appear to be cases further along the process than the mccanns
-
I'm sure gun it is quite capable of answering the question herself... If you think that why do you think many posters doubted they would make a claim
I'm sure they have applied because they have a very very strong case
There is a difference between making a claim and it getting anywhere.
-
There is a difference between making a claim and it getting anywhere.
That's why I gave my opinion they have very strong case based on other cases I have seen.... If you remember the sceptic argument was that it wouldn't be accepted... It seems to be changing now
-
That's why I gave my opinion they have very strong case based on other cases I have seen.... If you remember the sceptic argument was that it wouldn't be accepted... It seems to be changing now
We have nothing saying it has been accepted yet?
-
I'm sure one of those in the know would be able to provide the case number if application has been processed.
-
if your opinion is that an application has been made then you must have seen compelling evidence/proof that it has been made. on what basis do you believe that the application is now a fact
It doesn't cost much so why wouldn't they? There's always an outside chance that it'll succeed.
-
It doesn't cost much so why wouldn't they? There's always an outside chance that it'll succeed.
interesting..... The sceptic point if view was that it wouldn't be accepted now it might succeed.... Why do you think it won't be successful... Do you have, any logic or just prejudice
-
interesting..... The sceptic point if view was that it wouldn't be accepted now it might succeed.... Why do you think it won't be successful... Do you have, any logic or just prejudice
Please note that as far as I'm concerned 'the sceptic point of view' is a meaningless phrase. The only point of view I give is mine, I belong to no groups and speak for no-one else.
I don't think it will be accepted or successful, but predictions are foolish imo. People predicted that the McCanns would in their libel trial and then looked rather foolish when they lost.
-
Please note that as far as I'm concerned 'the sceptic point of view' is a meaningless phrase. The only point of view I give is mine, I belong to no groups and speak for no-one else.
I don't think it will be accepted or successful, but predictions are foolish imo. People predicted that the McCanns would in their libel trial and then looked rather foolish when they lost.
Was that the one they lost to the disgraced(according to some sources) Amaral.
-
Please note that as far as I'm concerned 'the sceptic point of view' is a meaningless phrase. The only point of view I give is mine, I belong to no groups and speak for no-one else.
I don't think it will be accepted or successful, but predictions are foolish imo. People predicted that the McCanns would in their libel trial and then looked rather foolish when they lost.
As regards the libel trial I think it's the SC that will look very silly when the ECHR explains how, poorly they understood their obligations re the ECHR
[Edit:removed goading comment.]
-
As regards the libel trial I think it's the SC that will look very silly when the ECHR explains how, poorly they understood their obligations re the ECHR
[Edit:removed goading comment.]
Why?
The McCann appeal if it goes ahead is merely one of many in many states.
I doubt any state officialdom loses much sleep over the rulings of the ECtHR furthermore I am sure states are well above worrying about any perceived "looking very silly".
"Though cautious not to expressly pass judgment on any future or current lawmaking around the subject, the president of the Queen’s bench division intimated that ECHR rulings were less binding than is widely perceived".
Sir Brian Leveson
https://www.theguardian.com/law/2015/may/24/british-courts-echr-leveson
Jeez that's two cites from The Grauniad in one day. I had better go lie down.
-
Was that the one they lost to the disgraced(according to some sources) Amaral.
I think you missed out the word bungling 8(0(*
Considering he was a disgraced bungling copper with a spent conviction for perjury and the other side always said it was nothing to do with the money he sure had a result there.
-
As regards the libel trial I think it's the SC that will look very silly when the ECHR explains how, poorly they understood their obligations re the ECHR
[Edit:removed goading comment.]
I doubt if Portugal would look any sillier than the other European Countries who have been admonished by the ECHR. On the whole they just seem to ignore them;
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/nov/21/uk-rejection-echr-ruling-prisoner-votes-devastating
-
I doubt if Portugal would look any sillier than the other European Countries who have been admonished by the ECHR. On the whole they just seem to ignore them;
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/nov/21/uk-rejection-echr-ruling-prisoner-votes-devastating
They do not just seem to ignore them on the whole... You have no proof of that... Sceptics always seem to quote this one same case
-
A different type of complaint to the ECHR but a warning for the McCanns that even victory may be challenged by the State.
http://portugalresident.com/portuguese-state-takes-on-european-court-of-human-rights
Posted by PORTUGALPRESS on March 07, 2018
A battling mother’s titanic struggle to receive State compensation for what she believes was her son’s totally avoidable death is being debated today in the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights. At issue is an earlier ruling by the court that the State was indeed negligent in the death of António José Carvalho and should pay his mother Maria da Glória Oliveira €26,112.80 (click here).
The Portuguese State however does not agree.
This is a complaint that goes back to tragic events almost 18 years ago when 35-year-old António José Carvalho walked out of the Coimbra psychiatric hospital where he was interned and ended up committing suicide on railway tracks nearby.
He died hours before staff at the hospital noticed his absence, and this is what has haunted his mother.
Say reports, she believes the hospital failed in its duty of care for her son - and she used Article 2 in the European Convention of Human Rights to try and establish this after failing to get any favourable court rulings in Portugal.
Article 2 reads that “no-one can be intentionally deprived of life”, explains tabloid Correio da Manhã today.
Over the years, Maria da Glória’s case has also cited the terrible delays faced in trying to get justice.
The still-grieving woman (CM claims she has “never got over” her son’s death) is now in her 80s and lives “very fragilised” physically and psychologically.
It is very rare for her to go a day without visiting her son’s grave, says the paper - stressing that when the European Court of Human Rights found in her favour last year, she felt finally that she could have some peace.
Today could see that peace taken away.
Says CM, the Grand Chamber of the ECHR is made up of 17 judges. One of the judges considering this case today will be Portuguese.
natasha.donn@algarveresident.com
-
Died 18 years ago. I wonder how long it has been before the Court ?
-
Has anyone discovered any information about the McCanns vs Portugal in their 'fight against Amaral' at the ECHR?
I was just wondering if they managed to put a cohesive report together they have had enough time. ^*&&
-
The Supreme Court is the highest in the land and a decision they make cannot be overturned by the ECHR.
McCanns would have to submit a complaint against Portugal imo.
-
The Supreme Court is the highest in the land and a decision they make cannot be overturned by the ECHR.
McCanns would have to submit a complaint against Portugal imo.
. Makes you wonder what they will achieve.
-
. Makes you wonder what they will achieve.
A fair hearing?
A fair interpretation of the civil law without prejudice?
I could go on but those two will do for starters.
-
A fair hearing?
A fair interpretation of the civil law without prejudice?
I could go on but those two will do for starters.
A fair hearing ? To what does that apply ? Doesn't it depend anyway on how the complaint is worded and if it's accepted ?
Surely a fair interpretation of civil law would be available to the McCanns without them approaching the ECHR
As I said and as I understand it the ECHR cannot change a Supreme Court decision.
-
A fair hearing ? To what does that apply ? Doesn't it depend anyway on how the complaint is worded and if it's accepted ?
Surely a fair interpretation of civil law would be available to the McCanns without them approaching the ECHR
As I said and as I understand it the ECHR cannot change a Supreme Court decision.
As I understand it ~ it has been claimed by some that the McCann family would not be allowed to have their case presented to the ECHR.
Perhaps we should wait until the fat lady has finished singing before deciding what can and cannot be done.
-
As I understand it ~ it has been claimed by some that the McCann family would not be allowed to have their case presented to the ECHR.
Perhaps we should wait until the fat lady has finished singing before deciding what can and cannot be done.
Yes I have heard that claim too that the McCanns would not be allowed to have their case presented . It depends on the content as to whether it's accepted or thrown out .
They most definitely cannot apply to have the SC decision changed. It's not what the ECHR is for .
-
As I understand it ~ it has been claimed by some that the McCann family would not be allowed to have their case presented to the ECHR.
Perhaps we should wait until the fat lady has finished singing before deciding what can and cannot be done.
As there is no evidence being offered to support a contention that an application has been accepted by the ECtHR, it would be a little premature to presume the fat lady will even be allowed to sing in front of that court.
-
Yes I have heard that claim too that the McCanns would not be allowed to have their case presented . It depends on the content as to whether it's accepted or thrown out .
They most definitely cannot apply to have the SC decision changed. It's not what the ECHR is for .
I made no claims about the case the McCann legal team will make to the European Court of Human Rights.
The fact that they have taken their case to the ECHR having exhausted all legal remedies of the Portuguese judicial system ... in my opinion rather suggests that the final decision of the Portuguese court, representing the State of Portugal which has brought them to this stage of proceedings ... will feature somewhere in the legal argument.
The words which spring to my mind are ~ "Jointly and Severally".
-
As there is no evidence being offered to support a contention that an application has been accepted by the ECtHR, it would be a little premature to presume the fat lady will even be allowed to sing in front of that court.
Then let us sit comfortably and await to see what presumption prevails.
Worth remembering that your present argument resembles the one made by some that an application would even be submitted.
-
Then let us sit comfortably and await to see what presumption prevails.
Worth remembering that your present argument resembles the one made by some that an application would even be submitted.
Have you cites to show
a) that an application has been submitted ?
b) that it's been accepted ?
-
Have you cites to show
a) that an application has been submitted ?
b) that it's been accepted ?
May I direct you to the Opening Post of this thread http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=8465.msg422701#msg422701 where it is stated ...
Snip
The appeal was lodged in July by their Portuguese lawyer Isabel Duarte and they are now waiting for a date to be confirmed.
Gerry and Kate McCann have made a last ditch appeal to the European Court of Human Rights after a Portuguese judge ruled against them.
A source close to the couple said: "They discussed the situation with their legal team and they decided that ultimately it was worth fighting the decision of the Portuguese court.
"They are upset that the court made this ruling but are also desperately upset at Amaral’s claims which are ludicrous and hurtful.’’
Last night the European Court of Human Rights confirmed an appeal had been lodged and officials were investigating its "admissibility’’ before deciding what to do next.
Family spokesman Clarence Mitchell told The Sun: "I can confirm that Kate and Gerry have lodged an appeal application at the European Court of Human Rights and the application is being considered.
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/4425917/madeleine-mccann-kate-gerry-goncarlo-amaral/#comments
-
Thankyou .I can see that the court has confirmed an appeal has been lodged but officials are investigating its admissability .
-
Thankyou .I can see that the court has confirmed an appeal has been lodged but officials are investigating its admissability .
Just remember where the claim is/was reported in.
-
Just remember where the claim is/was reported in.
Was the correct answer "The Sun"?
-
Then let us sit comfortably and await to see what presumption prevails.
Worth remembering that your present argument resembles the one made by some that an application would even be submitted.
1 Indeed
2 Not by me though so I fail to see the relevance of your comment wrt to my post.
-
1 Indeed
2 Not by me though so I fail to see the relevance of your comment wrt to my post.
It was a likeness.
-
Was the correct answer "The Sun"?
Correct,sadly you win nothing.
-
It was a likeness.
Not really. Two years ago I posted:
"They have to "do" the Supreme Court bit before they can even think about ECHR. Something about "exhausting all national remedies".
Then the argument becomes McCann v State of Portugal.
I'll make a wager involving the ECHR giving the case an airing and me giving part of my anatomy an airing in The Mander Centre in Wolverhampton @)(++(* "
-
. Makes you wonder what they will achieve.
a knock back... (&^&
-
Thankyou .I can see that the court has confirmed an appeal has been lodged but officials are investigating its admissability .
It will be on the top drawer of the cabinet...waiting to be read. could be a few months could be a few years...
-
https://portugalresident.com/state-ordered-to-pay-%E2%82%AC68000-to-casa-pia-defendant-paulo-pedroso
Posted by portugalpress on June 12, 2018
State ordered to pay €68,000 to Casa Pia defendant Paulo Pedroso
After all the years of media revelations and headlines, the Casa Pia child sex abuse investigation has suffered another hammer blow.
The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) has condemned the Portuguese State over its treatment of former Socialist minister Paulo Pedroso, “understanding that at the moment of his arrest there did not exist sufficient proof that (he) had committed crimes of sexual abuse of minors, as related by the youngsters”.
The court has ordered the State to pay “around 68,000 euros to Paulo Pedroso”. According to reports, authorities must stump up the money within the next three months.
The ECHR’s decision comes after Paulo Pedroso endured months of imprisonment (in 2003), having the moment of his arrest “captured by television channels” which then beamed it all over the country.
The court criticised the decision of judge Rui Teixeira who “did not allow lawyers for the defence access to medical reports of the alleged victims” and further condemned the subsequent courts (both appeal and the Supreme Court of Justice) for having denied Pedroso damages for his illegal detention.
This ruling comes after the former Minister for Labour and one-time spokesman for the Socialist Party sued the State for €600,000 on the grounds that his arrest was illegal and destroyed his political career.
Pedroso’s battle to clear his name has taken years. As long ago as 2008, Lisbon’s Court of Appeal dropped all charges against him, stressing that it could not detect sufficient evidence to take him and two others (one being celebrated comedian Herman José) to court.
Thus, 10 years on, Paulo Pedroso may at last receive compensation as a result of the longest trial and possibly most confusing trials in Portuguese history.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
https://portugalresident.com/state-ordered-to-pay-%E2%82%AC68000-to-casa-pia-defendant-paulo-pedroso
Posted by portugalpress on June 12, 2018
State ordered to pay €68,000 to Casa Pia defendant Paulo Pedroso
After all the years of media revelations and headlines, the Casa Pia child sex abuse investigation has suffered another hammer blow.
The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) has condemned the Portuguese State over its treatment of former Socialist minister Paulo Pedroso, “understanding that at the moment of his arrest there did not exist sufficient proof that (he) had committed crimes of sexual abuse of minors, as related by the youngsters”.
The court has ordered the State to pay “around 68,000 euros to Paulo Pedroso”. According to reports, authorities must stump up the money within the next three months.
The ECHR’s decision comes after Paulo Pedroso endured months of imprisonment (in 2003), having the moment of his arrest “captured by television channels” which then beamed it all over the country.
The court criticised the decision of judge Rui Teixeira who “did not allow lawyers for the defence access to medical reports of the alleged victims” and further condemned the subsequent courts (both appeal and the Supreme Court of Justice) for having denied Pedroso damages for his illegal detention.
This ruling comes after the former Minister for Labour and one-time spokesman for the Socialist Party sued the State for €600,000 on the grounds that his arrest was illegal and destroyed his political career.
Pedroso’s battle to clear his name has taken years. As long ago as 2008, Lisbon’s Court of Appeal dropped all charges against him, stressing that it could not detect sufficient evidence to take him and two others (one being celebrated comedian Herman José) to court.
Thus, 10 years on, Paulo Pedroso may at last receive compensation as a result of the longest trial and possibly most confusing trials in Portuguese history.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So it was ruled that the SCs judgement was incorrect
-
So it was ruled that the SCs judgement was incorrect
There are some parallels with the McCann case but I thought the 10 year time span of the case against the Portuguese justice system may be an indication of how long it could take Kate & Gerry to be vindicated. IMO.
-
10 years. My, how these things do drag out.
-
There are some parallels with the McCann case but I thought the 10 year time span of the case against the Portuguese justice system may be an indication of how long it could take Kate & Gerry to be vindicated. IMO.
I need tocheck some other cases which were resolved in 4 years...but it shows the SC does make mistakes and can see how the threat of action could keep amaral quiet
-
I need tocheck some other cases which were resolved in 4 years...but it shows the SC does make mistakes and can see how the threat of action could keep amaral quiet
It could be but what sort of noise were you expecting from him if that's the case?
-
I need tocheck some other cases which were resolved in 4 years...but it shows the SC does make mistakes and can see how the threat of action could keep amaral quiet
The ECHR application has absolutely nothing to do with Amaral.
-
The ECHR application has absolutely nothing to do with Amaral.
To some it's a bit like
"Mille viae duc..t homines per saecula Romam".
Rumour has it Sr Amaral has morphed into Phil Drabble and along with Eddie has signed a contract to rework One Man and His Dog ...................
-
The SCjudgement related to the balance if free speech by amaral and reputation to the mccanns... It therefore... IMO... Follows that the ECHR will consider the same balance... So it is, to do with amaral
-
The SCjudgement related to the balance if free speech by amaral and reputation to the mccanns... It therefore... IMO... Follows that the ECHR will consider the same balance... So it is, to do with amaral
You have no clue on what basis the application has been made or, indeed, if it has been made at all.
-
The ECHR application has absolutely nothing to do with Amaral.
Which application are you talking about. .the one made by the mccanns
-
You have no clue on what basis the application has been made or, indeed, if it has been made at all.
Of course I do
-
Of course I do
Then you will be able to post the evidence.
-
Then you will be able to post the evidence.
The mccanns have spent the past years in court trying to stop amarals claims.... That's a major clue.... Do you think I'm wrong and it's nothing to do with amaral... Lol
-
The ECHR application has absolutely nothing to do with Amaral.
Cite please.
-
Cite please.
You can't complain about people to the ECHR, you complain about states. The McCanns will have complained about the state of Portugal.
-
If the McCanns are successful in the ECHR there will be nothing to stop them suing Amaral for every libellous statement & publication he's made since his original book & documentary. IMO.
-
If the McCanns are successful in the ECHR there will be nothing to stop them suing Amaral for every libellous statement & publication he's made since his original book & documentary. IMO.
Absolutely.... And armed with the judgement they can't lose.... Imo
-
If the McCanns are successful in the ECHR there will be nothing to stop them suing Amaral for every libellous statement & publication he's made since his original book & documentary. IMO.
And how are they going to pay for it? There’s no conditional fee agreements in Portugal.
-
You can't complain about people to the ECHR, you complain about states. The McCanns will have complained about the state of Portugal.
The complaint has to relate to the previous legal case... The complaint will be against Portugal for allowing the SC judgement are amaral
-
If the McCanns are successful in the ECHR there will be nothing to stop them suing Amaral for every libellous statement & publication he's made since his original book & documentary. IMO.
I think not. Rulings and laws not likely to be applied retrospectively.
-
The mccanns have spent the past years in court trying to stop amarals claims.... That's a major clue.... Do you think I'm wrong and it's nothing to do with amaral... Lol
I asked what were the grounds for the application and if the application had actually been filed. Do you have any evidence for either ?
And no, the ECHR application has nothing to do with Amaral.
-
I asked what were the grounds for the application and if the application had actually been filed. Do you have any evidence for either ?
And no, the ECHR application has nothing to do with Amaral.
You said I hadn't got a clue... I have... Of course it has everything to do with amaral... You haven't got a clue
-
You said I hadn't got a clue... I have
I asked if you had evidence. You don’t.
-
I asked if you had evidence. You don’t.
I do have evidence... You are probably confusing evidence and proof
-
I do have evidence... You are probably confusing evidence and proof
You have neither.
-
You have neither.
Then you don't understand the meaning of the word evidence
-
Then you don't understand the meaning of the word evidence
Give it up Davel. Googling past cases tells you nothing about the McCanns application. You are guessing.
-
It's all very terribly hush hush this application to the European court. For all we know it has already been rejected this the silence recently.
-
Absolutely.... And armed with the judgement they can't lose.... Imo
The ECHR has no power to overturn national SC’s judgements.
-
It's all very terribly hush hush this application to the European court. For all we know it has already been rejected this the silence recently.
There is a silence settling over things, isn't there? As requested by OG perhaps.
-
The ECHR has no power to overturn national SC’s judgements.
As I have stated many times... What they can do is declare a judgement wrong ...if amaral repeats any claims now or in the future.... That could be the subject of a new claim against amaral
-
It's all very terribly hush hush this application to the European court. For all we know it has already been rejected this the silence recently.
On what grounds might it be rejected
-
I think not. Rulings and laws not likely to be applied retrospectively.
Misty is absolutely right.. If the ECHR declare the SC judgement invalid then any statement made after the judgement is subject to the judgement made by the ECHR
-
As the ECtHR has no powers by which it can enforce a ruling how will it enforce any ruling it makes in this case?
At best this will come down to the ECtHR debating which of two ECHR articles should hold sway in this case.
-
As the ECtHR has no powers by which it can enforce a ruling how will it enforce any ruling it makes in this case?
At best this will come down to the ECtHR debating which of two ECHR articles should hold sway in this case.
See the cases I have quoted where striking a balance between 10 and 8 has happened many times....it is up to Portugal whether they acccepr the ruling... They have just had one made, against them...let's see if they enforce it
-
See the cases I have quoted where striking a balance between 10 and 8 has happened many times....it is up to Portugal whether they acccepr the ruling... They have just had one made, against them...let's see if they enforce it
They also had one recently where they were criticised for putting 8 over 10.
-
They also had one recently where they were criticised for putting 8 over 10.
every case needs to be judged on its merits...
-
It's all very terribly hush hush this application to the European court. For all we know it has already been rejected this the silence recently.
If you go on the ECHR and type in McCann v Portugal there is nothing,so its not even reached the inadmissible/admissible stage as yet.
-
If you go on the ECHR and type in McCann v Portugal there is nothing,so its not even reached the inadmissible/admissible stage as yet.
Cases get dealt with in order of importance, i.e. risk to life or liberty take precedence.
-
Cases get dealt with in order of importance, i.e. risk to life or liberty take precedence.
Come back when the next world cup comes around then. (&^&
-
every case needs to be judged on its merits...
I forgot to mention the statute of limitations for civil cases but defamation laws are a bit more complicated in Portugal.
Some interesting facts in this https://ipi.media/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/PortugalCriminalDef_IPI_ENG.pdf
-
Come back when the next world cup comes around then. (&^&
Tis from the fail quoting that font of rubbish the s..m.
Family spokesman Clarence Mitchell told MailOnline: 'I can confirm that Kate and Gerry McCann’s Portuguese lawyers lodged an appeal application in the Amaral case with the European Court of Human Rights in July of this year.
'The Court acknowledged the application in August and its admissibility is now being examined. Kate and Gerry will not be commenting on any aspect whatsoever as it remains entirely a matter for their Portuguese lawyers.'
It is understood that the result of the appeal will not be known for at least four years.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4867778/Madeleine-McCann-s-parents-appeal-European-Court.html
-
Cases get dealt with in order of importance, i.e. risk to life or liberty take precedence.
never a truer word - IMO
-
See the cases I have quoted where striking a balance between 10 and 8 has happened many times....it is up to Portugal whether they acccepr the ruling... They have just had one made, against them...let's see if they enforce it
My question remains.
As the ECtHR have no powers of enforcement by what means will they enforce any ruling on McCann v Portugal ?
The UK has said "upstick" to ECtHR rulings more times than you can shake a stick at.
-
My question remains.
As the ECtHR have no powers of enforcement by what means will they enforce any ruling on McCann v Portugal ?
The UK has said "upstick" to ECtHR rulings more times than you can shake a stick at.
On what are you basing your figures... Or are you making things up as you go along....
-
I forgot to mention the statute of limitations for civil cases but defamation laws are a bit more complicated in Portugal.
Some interesting facts in this https://ipi.media/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/PortugalCriminalDef_IPI_ENG.pdf
Was the case brought against Amaral one of defamation? or was it not about the parents being hurt that the police were even thinking they were responsible for their daughters mortal state? and did they not add to that the pain and suffering they and they children experienced was as a direct result of the contents of the book which they claim had an affect on the 'search' for their daughter. AND didn't they fail to provide any evidence to support these claims?
AND didn't the judge ask 'what about the level of pain you suffered' your daughter missing or the book.? I wonder why she asked that question, and I wonder what the reply was.. I just forget.
NB amended post to include why the judge asked about the level of pain. thanks to Faith.
Judge - Did that have to do with the disappearance of your child, or with the book and the documentary?
Kate Healy (McCann) Both were overwhelming, but it was intensified when the book was published.’
-
Was the case brought against Amaral one of defamation? or was it not about the parents being hurt that the police were even thinking they were responsible for their daughters mortal state? and did they not add to that the pain and suffering they and they children experienced was as a direct result of the contents of the book which they claim had an affect on the 'search' for their daughter. AND didn't they fail to provide any evidence to support these claims?
AND didn't the judge ask 'what was more painful' your daughter missing or the book.? I wonder why she asked that question, and I wonder what the reply was.. I just forget.
Here it is in all its glory.
‘
Judge - Were you diagnosed with a clinical depression?
Kate Healy (McCann) No. Depression is an over-diagnosed, over used term to diagnose those who feel a bit down, clinically I wasn't depressed.
Judge - There is a quote attributed to you - did you ever say that you wished you were in a coma so you wouldn't suffer?
Kate Healy (McCann) Yes.
Judge - Did that have to do with the disappearance of your child, or with the book and the documentary?
Kate Healy (McCann) Both were overwhelming, but it was intensified when the book was published.’
Part of the claim against Amaral said that his book caused a severe depression yet Kate denies it when giving evidence. Talk about shooting yourself in the foot ! It would appear this lady will go to any length to maintain the veneer of respectability, even scuppering her own case.
-
Was the case brought against Amaral one of defamation? or was it not about the parents being hurt that the police were even thinking they were responsible for their daughters mortal state? and did they not add to that the pain and suffering they and they children experienced was as a direct result of the contents of the book which they claim had an affect on the 'search' for their daughter. AND didn't they fail to provide any evidence to support these claims?
AND didn't the judge ask 'what was more painful' your daughter missing or the book.? I wonder why she asked that question, and I wonder what the reply was.. I just forget.
Did The Judge ask that?
A cite is require. Otherwise I will remove this comment.
-
Here it is in all its glory.
‘
Judge - Were you diagnosed with a clinical depression?
Kate Healy (McCann) No. Depression is an over-diagnosed, over used term to diagnose those who feel a bit down, clinically I wasn't depressed.
Judge - There is a quote attributed to you - did you ever say that you wished you were in a coma so you wouldn't suffer?
Kate Healy (McCann) Yes.
Judge - Did that have to do with the disappearance of your child, or with the book and the documentary?
Kate Healy (McCann) Both were overwhelming, but it was intensified when the book was published.’
Part of the claim against Amaral said that his book caused a severe depression yet Kate denies it when giving evidence. Talk about shooting yourself in the foot ! It would appear this lady will go to any length to maintain the veneer of respectability, even scuppering her own case.
Kate denied having clinical depression...she does not deny being depressed...
-
Did The Judge ask that?
A cite is require. Otherwise I will remove this comment.
Cite posted.
-
Kate denied having clinical depression...she does not deny being depressed...
What, being a little bit sad? Her daughter had been allegedly abducted. I’d be surprised if she wasn’t ‘a little bit sad’.
-
As I recall, they claimed damages for all the family, but for different reasons. In the case of the parents the damages were to compensate them for their pain, suffering and emotional distress. They felt;
"totally destroyed, depressed, feeling ashamed and experiencing a deep malaise because they are considered as having responsibility in the disappearance of their daughter and as coward people who have hidden her body, simulating a kidnapping."
That claim wasn't proved, but this was;
"Because of the statements made by defendant Gonçalo Amaral in the book, in the documentary and in the interview to Correio da Manhã, authors Kate McCann and Gerald McCann suffer permanent anguish, insomnia, lack of appetite, anxiety and irritability, preoccupation and indefinable fear."
With a caveat;
"The judge adds that this psychological state is predates the book launch, the documentary and the interview and was not caused by them. Nonetheless, it is not unreasonable to believe that the book, the documentary and the interview had an effect on the couple, i.e. It had an effect but that is to be expected."
The judge seems to be saying that they did feel that way, but the feelings weren't caused by the book, the documentary or the interview.
-
Cite posted.
That Cite is not good enough. The comment was twisted, to say the least.
-
Did The Judge ask that?
A cite is require. Otherwise I will remove this comment.
Judge - Were you diagnosed with a clinical depression?
Kate Healy (McCann) No. Depression is an over-diagnosed, over used term to diagnose those who feel a bit down, clinically I wasn't depressed.
Judge - There is a quote attributed to you - did you ever say that you wished you were in a coma so you wouldn't suffer?
Kate Healy (McCann) Yes.
Judge - Did that have to do with the disappearance of your child, or with the book and the documentary?
Kate Healy (McCann) Both were overwhelming, but it was intensified when the book was published.’
Yeah this bit.
Thanks Faith 8**8:/:
-
Did The Judge ask that?
A cite is require. Otherwise I will remove this comment.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=4745.0 Post 3
-
Judge - Were you diagnosed with a clinical depression?
Kate Healy (McCann) No. Depression is an over-diagnosed, over used term to diagnose those who feel a bit down, clinically I wasn't depressed.
Judge - There is a quote attributed to you - did you ever say that you wished you were in a coma so you wouldn't suffer?
Kate Healy (McCann) Yes.
Judge - Did that have to do with the disappearance of your child, or with the book and the documentary?
Kate Healy (McCann) Both were overwhelming, but it was intensified when the book was published.’
Yeah this bit.
Thanks Faith 8**8:/:
As I said. Twisted. But never mind. You do yourself no favours.
-
Do you mean someone who has experienced the vagaries of life?
Haven't we all? Mais perhaps not. I don't know. I have never been the best of parents. But then I never knew what that was supposed to be, since no one ever taught me.
Teach them kindness and how to stand on their own two feet. That was about it. And I can't say that my children have failed me.
Just try to be kind.
-
What, being a little bit sad? Her daughter had been allegedly abducted. I’d be surprised if she wasn’t ‘a little bit sad’.
Where does Kate say she was “a little bit sad”?
-
As I recall, they claimed damages for all the family, but for different reasons. In the case of the parents the damages were to compensate them for their pain, suffering and emotional distress. They felt;
"totally destroyed, depressed, feeling ashamed and experiencing a deep malaise because they are considered as having responsibility in the disappearance of their daughter and as coward people who have hidden her body, simulating a kidnapping."
That claim wasn't proved, but this was;
"Because of the statements made by defendant Gonçalo Amaral in the book, in the documentary and in the interview to Correio da Manhã, authors Kate McCann and Gerald McCann suffer permanent anguish, insomnia, lack of appetite, anxiety and irritability, preoccupation and indefinable fear."
With a caveat;
"The judge adds that this psychological state is predates the book launch, the documentary and the interview and was not caused by them. Nonetheless, it is not unreasonable to believe that the book, the documentary and the interview had an effect on the couple, i.e. It had an effect but that is to be expected."
The judge seems to be saying that they did feel that way, but the feelings weren't caused by the book, the documentary or the interview.
What does “it (the book, the documentary and thr interview) had an effect (on the couple) but that is to be expected” mean then?
-
FAO of those who are ignorant about depression:
What is the difference between depression and clinical depression?
In Mental Health, Depression and Bipolar Disorder, Health
they are very much the same. but clinical depression is the term to express persistant depression that needs ongoing treatment.
What is clinical depression?
Clinical Depression . Clinical depression (also called major depressive disorder , or unipolar depression when compared to bipolar disorder) is a state of intense sadness, melancholia or despair that has advanced to the point of being disruptive to an individual's social functioning and/or activities of daily living.. Although a low mood or state of dejection that does not affect functioning is often colloquially referred to as depression,clinical depression is a clinical diagnosis and may be different fromthe everyday meaning of "being depressed." Many people identify thefeeling of being clinically depressed as "feeling sad for no reason",or "having no motivation to do anything." A person suffering fromdepression may feel tired, sad, irritable, lazy, unmotivated, and apathetic.Clinical depression is generally acknowledged to be more serious thannormal depressed feelings. It often leads to constant negative thinkingand sometimes substance abuse. Extreme depression can culminate in its sufferers attempting or committing suicide. 1 . 1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clinical_depression .
-
You said ‘people who are depressed. Kate specifically told the judge she was not depressed.
-
FAO of those who are ignorant about depression:
What is the difference between depression and clinical depression?
In Mental Health, Depression and Bipolar Disorder, Health
they are very much the same. but clinical depression is the term to express persistant depression that needs ongoing treatment.
What is clinical depression?
Clinical Depression . Clinical depression (also called major depressive disorder , or unipolar depression when compared to bipolar disorder) is a state of intense sadness, melancholia or despair that has advanced to the point of being disruptive to an individual's social functioning and/or activities of daily living.. Although a low mood or state of dejection that does not affect functioning is often colloquially referred to as depression,clinical depression is a clinical diagnosis and may be different fromthe everyday meaning of "being depressed." Many people identify thefeeling of being clinically depressed as "feeling sad for no reason",or "having no motivation to do anything." A person suffering fromdepression may feel tired, sad, irritable, lazy, unmotivated, and apathetic.Clinical depression is generally acknowledged to be more serious thannormal depressed feelings. It often leads to constant negative thinkingand sometimes substance abuse. Extreme depression can culminate in its sufferers attempting or committing suicide. 1 . 1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clinical_depression .
Judge - Were you diagnosed with a clinical depression?
Kate Healy (McCann) No. Depression is an over-diagnosed, over used term to diagnose those who feel a bit down, clinically I wasn't depressed.
-
Judge - Were you diagnosed with a clinical depression?
Kate Healy (McCann) No. Depression is an over-diagnosed, over used term to diagnose those who feel a bit down, clinically I wasn't depressed.
kate was asked a specific question...was she clinically depressed. Being a doctor...unlike you....she understood the question and gave the correct answer...there is a difference between clinical depression and situational depression...try google
-
kate was asked a specific question...was she clinically depressed. Being a doctor...unlike you....she understood the question and gave the correct answer...there is a difference between clinical depression and situational depression...try google
So she felt ‘a bit down’. I guess you would after your daughter had disappeared.
-
So she felt ‘a bit down’. I guess you would after your daughter had disappeared.
kate never described her feelings in that way.......you do get aome things so wrong
-
kate never described her feelings in that way.......you do get aome things so wrong
From her own words, if you are not clinically depressed you’re simply ‘a bit down’.
Btw I see you’re trying to avoid my window question over on the other thread.
-
I’m not doing any such thing. You said ‘people who are drepressed’. Kate specifically told the judge she was not depressed.
You said Kate felt “a little bit sad” you are,taking the piss.
-
What does “it (the book, the documentary and thr interview) had an effect (on the couple) but that is to be expected” mean then?
I don't know. She seems to think they proved they had certain problems, but she doesn't accept that those problems were caused by the book. DVD and interview; they already had them.
The book, DVD and interview had an effect, she says. Why? Well, it was to be expected. She doesn't say what the effect was though, and she makes no effort to describe it.
In my opinion she might as well have said 'Of course it had an effect, what else would you expect?'. It's an assumption.
-
Judge:
“Because of the statements made by defendant Gonçalo Amaral in the book, in the documentary and in the interview to Correio da Manhã, authors Kate McCann and Gerald McCann suffer permanent anguish, insomnia, lack of appetite, anxiety and irritability, preoccupation and indefinable fear."”
Carry on taking the piss though, you do it so well.
That was proposed by the McCann's lawyer. The judge said;
"that this psychological state is predates the book launch, the documentary and the interview and was not caused by them"
Carry on misquoting if you wish, though and I will carry on correcting you where necessary.
-
I don't know. She seems to think they proved they had certain problems, but she doesn't accept that those problems were caused by the book. DVD and interview; they already had them.
The book, DVD and interview had an effect, she says. Why? Well, it was to be expected. She doesn't say what the effect was though, and she makes no effort to describe it.
In my opinion she might as well have said 'Of course it had an effect, what else would you expect?'. It's an assumption.
So the judge said it DID have an effect, glad that's sorted then.
-
That was proposed by the McCann's lawyer. The judge said;
"that this psychological state is predates the book launch, the documentary and the interview and was not caused by them"
Carry on misquoting if you wish, though and I will carry on correcting you where necessary.
I did not misquote, please don't lie. I copied verbatim an excerpt from the judgement.
-
I don't know. She seems to think they proved they had certain problems, but she doesn't accept that those problems were caused by the book. DVD and interview; they already had them.
The book, DVD and interview had an effect, she says. Why? Well, it was to be expected. She doesn't say what the effect was though, and she makes no effort to describe it.
In my opinion she might as well have said 'Of course it had an effect, what else would you expect?'. It's an assumption.
Doesn't she?
"Because of the statements made by defendant Gonçalo Amaral in the book, in the documentary and in the interview to Correio da Manhã, authors Kate McCann and Gerald McCann suffer permanent anguish, insomnia, lack of appetite, anxiety and irritability, preoccupation and indefinable fear."
-
You said Kate felt “a little bit sad” you are,taking the piss.
Apologies. It was ‘ a little down’.
-
There is nothing worse than losing a child,
and that pain was amplified by both the book and the documentary.
Kate Healy (McCann)
-
Apologies. It was ‘ a little down’.
kate never said she felt...a little down......you need to do some research
-
Apologies. It was ‘ a little down’.
Could you please supply a link to the full text of Kate McCann's testimony - much obliged.
-
kate never said she felt...a little down......you need to do some research
And you need to answer questions asked of you.
-
Could you please supply a link to the full text of Kate McCann's testimony - much obliged.
It’s at the top of the homepage.
-
And you need to answer questions asked of you.
ask away ...and provide a cite for kate saying she felt...a little down...its total rubbish and shows how ignorant of the true facts you are
-
ask away ...and provide a cite for kate saying she felt...a little down...its total rubbish and shows how ignorant of the true facts you are
Judge - Were you diagnosed with a clinical depression?
Kate Healy (McCann) No. Depression is an over-diagnosed, over used term to diagnose those who feel a bit down, clinically I wasn't depressed.
So she wasn’t clinically depressed simply a bit down. These are her words not mine.
And the evidence for the window being open before Kate raised the alarm ?
-
Judge - Were you diagnosed with a clinical depression?
Kate Healy (McCann) No. Depression is an over-diagnosed, over used term to diagnose those who feel a bit down, clinically I wasn't depressed.
So she wasn’t clinically depressed simply a bit down. These are her words not mine.
And the evidence for the window being open before Kate raised the alarm ?
depression is an overused word to describe those feeling a bit down...what makes you think kate was referring to herself......you are making an assumption...
evidence of open window...kates uncorroborated statement
-
It’s at the top of the homepage.
Homepage of what? Just post the link please.
-
Homepage of what? Just post the link please.
This forum.
-
Homepage of what? Just post the link please.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=4760.0
where it also states
Important Notice
Readers are warned that this court Report is not a verbatim account of events but is merely a summary.
As the content is sourced via a third party and although checks are made, the forum cannot guarantee
its veracity. All reports are made in good faith.
kate never described herself as feeling a bit down...to say she did is a total lie
-
I did not misquote, please don't lie. I copied verbatim an excerpt from the judgement.
Please don't accuse me of lying!!!!
The text is correct, but it wasn't said by the judge, it was part of the McCann's claims. The judge rejected the claim that Amaral's statements had caused these problems;
13. Because of the statements made by defendant Gonçalo Amaral in the book, in the documentary and in the interview to Correio da Manhã, authors Kate McCann and Gerald McCann suffer permanent anguish, insomnia, lack of appetite, anxiety and irritability, preoccupation and indefinable fear?
Proved.
The judge adds that this psychological state is predates the book launch, the documentary and the interview and was not caused by them. Nonetheless, it is not unreasonable to believe that the book, the documentary and the interview had an effect on the couple, i.e. It had an effect but that is to be expected.
-
Please don't accuse me of lying!!!!
The text is correct, but it wasn't said by the judge, it was part of the McCann's claims. The judge rejected the claim that Amaral's statements had caused these problems;
13. Because of the statements made by defendant Gonçalo Amaral in the book, in the documentary and in the interview to Correio da Manhã, authors Kate McCann and Gerald McCann suffer permanent anguish, insomnia, lack of appetite, anxiety and irritability, preoccupation and indefinable fear?
Proved.
The judge adds that this psychological state is predates the book launch, the documentary and the interview and was not caused by them. Nonetheless, it is not unreasonable to believe that the book, the documentary and the interview had an effect on the couple, i.e. It had an effect but that is to be expected.
I apologise. It was a genuine mistake on my part, the way the quote was c & p'ed I thought that that part of the post was attributed to the judge. Please accept my apologies/
-
I apologise. It was a genuine mistake on my part, the way the quote was c & p'ed I thought that that part of the post was attributed to the judge. Please accept my apologies/
Thank you. It's not always easy to be sure of who said what. Better luck next time lol.
-
I forgot to mention the statute of limitations for civil cases but defamation laws are a bit more complicated in Portugal.
Some interesting facts in this https://ipi.media/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/PortugalCriminalDef_IPI_ENG.pdf
I've not had time as yet to give the linked document an in-depth read, Misty. "Briefing:Criminal Defamation in Portugal" It looks informative.
For example: one of the two reasons given for holding the working visit (Conference?) in Portugal is outlined as
Quote
2. An unusually high number of condemnations of Portugal at the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) for violations of Art. 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights, many of which concerned the application of defamation laws.
https://ipi.media/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/PortugalCriminalDef_IPI_ENG.pdf
Interestingly the IPI ( International Press Institute) notes that defamation is a criminal offence in Portugal which carries with it jail terms.
Certainly bound to be of interest and concern to a body which bills itself as "IPI: Defending Press Freedom for 65 Years"
I've only had a cursory glance but I've picked up on the fact that what we have considered a civil matter might actually have been a criminal one.
Quote
In Portugal, as in other continental European countries, the system of “private prosecution” appears to resemble
civil action, and is even often referred to informally as such.
However, there are important differences.
First, regardless of whether prosecutions are public or private, punishments (including imprisonment) will still be criminal in nature, i.e., backed by the state.
This is in contrast with civil damage awards, which involve exchanges between private parties.
Second, criminal defamation cases in Portugal offer the plaintiff a financial advantage, as numerous lawyers and journalists pointed out during IPI’s visit.
A plaintiff in a Portuguese civil court, in addition to paying his or her lawyer, must pay two rounds of expensive court fees before proceedings begin, thus offering a certain degree of protection against unfounded suits.
In a criminal court, by contrast, a plaintiff is liable for a fee after proceedings but only if he or she loses the case.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It is necessary to point out here that Portuguese courts have been condemned by the ECHR for violating freedom of expression in 12 criminal defamation cases since 2005.
https://ipi.media/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/PortugalCriminalDef_IPI_ENG.pdf
Might the weight of that knowledge have influenced the appeal court judges to rule in favour of the freedom of expression which has brought Portugal back to the ECHR?
-
I've not had time as yet to give the linked document an in-depth read, Misty. "Briefing:Criminal Defamation in Portugal" It looks informative.
For example: one of the two reasons given for holding the working visit (Conference?) in Portugal is outlined as
Quote
2. An unusually high number of condemnations of Portugal at the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) for violations of Art. 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights, many of which concerned the application of defamation laws.
https://ipi.media/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/PortugalCriminalDef_IPI_ENG.pdf
Interestingly the IPI ( International Press Institute) notes that defamation is a criminal offence in Portugal which carries with it jail terms.
Certainly bound to be of interest and concern to a body which bills itself as "IPI: Defending Press Freedom for 65 Years"
I've only had a cursory glance but I've picked up on the fact that what we have considered a civil matter might actually have been a criminal one.
Quote
In Portugal, as in other continental European countries, the system of “private prosecution” appears to resemble
civil action, and is even often referred to informally as such.
However, there are important differences.
First, regardless of whether prosecutions are public or private, punishments (including imprisonment) will still be criminal in nature, i.e., backed by the state.
This is in contrast with civil damage awards, which involve exchanges between private parties.
Second, criminal defamation cases in Portugal offer the plaintiff a financial advantage, as numerous lawyers and journalists pointed out during IPI’s visit.
A plaintiff in a Portuguese civil court, in addition to paying his or her lawyer, must pay two rounds of expensive court fees before proceedings begin, thus offering a certain degree of protection against unfounded suits.
In a criminal court, by contrast, a plaintiff is liable for a fee after proceedings but only if he or she loses the case.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It is necessary to point out here that Portuguese courts have been condemned by the ECHR for violating freedom of expression in 12 criminal defamation cases since 2005.
https://ipi.media/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/PortugalCriminalDef_IPI_ENG.pdf
Might the weight of that knowledge have influenced the appeal court judges to rule in favour of the freedom of expression which has brought Portugal back to the ECHR?
An average of 1 a year doesn't sound a bad record.
Have you got comparable figures for other countries, or is this just a 'criticize Portugal' post?
-
An average of 1 a year doesn't sound a bad record.
Have you got comparable figures for other countries, or is this just a 'criticize Portugal' post?
You mean as opposed to criticizing the UK... SY... or the McCanns post
-
Hmmm. Although the general concept exists in the PT Civil Code, couched in terms of rights, the actual term of "defamation" only appears to exist in the criminal one, for some reason.
There does appear to have been a crackdown towards greater freedom of expression in criminal actions for defamation, as - at least from what I can gather - they appear to be a remnant from a different era, largely brought by politicians, public servants / professionals against journalists / press editors. (One a few years ago was against a journalist who described a politician as a "clown" - from memory that got chucked out.)
That makes sense to me as otherwise there would be no investigative journalism into corruption or professional malpractice. If the politician (or whoever) won the case, there was a prospect of a jail sentence, although rarely enforced, and usually replaced by a fine or presumably even a suspended sentence. From memory, the laws changed to increase the maximum sentence for which someone could be convicted (on any charge) before a custodial sentence was a real possibility (from memory it went from 3 to 5, in line with sentencing in several other countries).
However, the McCann v Amaral et al. one took place in a civil court.
Tuesday January 12, 2010
8:40 jondipaolo:
Good morning, i’m outside the palacio da justica in lisbon where the mcann libel trial will take place
http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/Twitter_jondipaolo_12_01_2010.htm
... Which is a civil courts building:
http://www.trienaldelisboa.com/ohl2017/en/places/palacio-da-justica/
-
I had appreciated it was a civil case.
-
Hmmm. Although the general concept exists in the PT Civil Code, couched in terms of rights, the actual term of "defamation" only appears to exist in the criminal one, for some reason.
There does appear to have been a crackdown towards greater freedom of expression in criminal actions for defamation, as - at least from what I can gather - they appear to be a remnant from a different era, largely brought by politicians, public servants / professionals against journalists / press editors. (One a few years ago was against a journalist who described a politician as a "clown" - from memory that got chucked out.)
That makes sense to me as otherwise there would be no investigative journalism into corruption or professional malpractice. If the politician (or whoever) won the case, there was a prospect of a jail sentence, although rarely enforced, and usually replaced by a fine or presumably even a suspended sentence. From memory, the laws changed to increase the maximum sentence for which someone could be convicted (on any charge) before a custodial sentence was a real possibility (from memory it went from 3 to 5, in line with sentencing in several other countries).
However, the McCann v Amaral et al. one took place in a civil court.
Tuesday January 12, 2010
8:40 jondipaolo:
Good morning, i’m outside the palacio da justica in lisbon where the mcann libel trial will take place
http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/Twitter_jondipaolo_12_01_2010.htm
... Which is a civil courts building:
http://www.trienaldelisboa.com/ohl2017/en/places/palacio-da-justica/
I think the document Misty linked to will take a bit of study to enable a full understanding and not just a cursory read which I've only had time to do so far (LOL not even 'cursory' I'm not past page one yet plus a quick skim!).
I don't even know if there will be anything bearing any relevance to the McCann appeal to the ECHR; I thought it is written well - bearing in mind the above caveat - with some promising detail which hpefully might be worth proper discussion.
-
A reminder guys...please stay within the thread theme. Thanks!
-
I think the document Misty linked to will take a bit of study to enable a full understanding and not just a cursory read which I've only had time to do so far (LOL not even 'cursory' I'm not past page one yet plus a quick skim!).
I don't even know if there will be anything bearing any relevance to the McCann appeal to the ECHR; I thought it is written well - bearing in mind the above caveat - with some promising detail which hpefully might be worth proper discussion.
From what I have read it is more regarding Portugal's failure to respect article 10 when a journalist is criticizing the establishment.... As, someone suggested this may be why the SC decided in favour of 10 over 8. It also relates to criminal cases where it seems the mccanns was, a, civil case
From what I have read are other cases of defamation judged against Portugal at the ECHR.
-
When the McCanns went to the SC court to over turn the appeal what did they go to it for?
-
When the McCanns went to the SC court to over turn the appeal what did they go to it for?
Because they felt the Appeal Court's ruling was frivolous.
-
When the McCanns went to the SC court to over turn the appeal what did they go to it for?
I know what the SC said in their judge me.. It rather makes sense that their judgement would relate to what they had asked to judge
-
Because they felt the Appeal Court's ruling was frivolous.
So on to the ECHR with that? surely they can't contest anything else.
-
Because they felt the Appeal Court's ruling was frivolous.
I think you are now getting confused ...cite for frivolous
-
So on to the ECHR with that? surely they can't contest anything else.
Is that your opinion
-
Because they felt the Appeal Court's ruling was frivolous.
Various rags were quoting it as such.
Express,other rags are availible.
A document was lodged on Friday seeking to annul the court’s decision, calling it “frivolous”.
-
the court cases are fascinating but I have left them alone for they will not solve the mystery IMO.
-
the court cases are fascinating but I have left them alone for they will not solve the mystery IMO.
No sign of anything else on that score Rob,imo of course.
-
Their argument seemed to be about Article 277 The archiving document quoted 277/1;
1 - The Public Ministry shall, by dispatch, close the investigation, as soon as it has gathered sufficient evidence that the crime was not confirmed, that the arguido did not practice it in any way or that the procedure is legally inadmiss
The SC judges ruled that this was wrong, and that 277/2 should have been used;
2. The investigation shall also be closed if it had not been possible for the Public Ministry to obtain sufficient evidence confirming the crime or who were the authors.
-
I think you are now getting confused ...cite for frivolous
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/02/21/madeleine-mccanns-parents-attack-portuguese-judges-acting-frivolously/
-
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/02/21/madeleine-mccanns-parents-attack-portuguese-judges-acting-frivolously/
So who used the word frivolously...the writ was obviously in Portuguese... Who translated it as frivolously
-
So who used the word frivolously...the writ was obviously in Portuguese... Who translated it as frivolously
Cropper I expect.
-
So on to the ECHR with that? surely they can't contest anything else.
It is just too funny. them taking Portugal to court. I MEAN way too funny. They may contest the colour of the parchment used...
It says a lot that NONE of their time and effort has been spent searching/looking for their daughter...
-
It is just too funny. them taking Portugal to court. I MEAN way too funny. They may contest the colour of the parchment used...
It says a lot that NONE of their time and effort has been spent searching/looking for their daughter...
It raises two notions in my head:
1) A bad day at the races where you are putting a couple of grand you don't have on a no hoper in the last race in the wishfulness it will come in and you break even.
2) How many times do you need to stick your finger in the fan before you cotton on it's not such a bright idea?
-
It raises two notions in my head:
1) A bad day at the races where you are putting a couple of grand you don't have on a no hoper in the last race in the wishfulness it will come in and you break even.
2) How many times do you need to stick your finger in the fan before you cotton on it's not such a bright idea?
Yeah flogging a dead hoss does spring to mind.
-
The difference between 277/1 and 277/2 seems quite subtle to me, but the McCann team said that the use of 277/1 was correct because the investigation had gathered enough evidence to prove the arguidos innocent.
"As far as the appellants are aware of, the archiving at stake was carried out, in the course of the investigation, because sufficient proof had been gathered that the then arguidos did not commit any facts of a criminal relevance and in any way whatsoever, this conclusion substantiating an archiving for factual reasons"
http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/Annulment_request.htm
They are ignoring, however the quite clear statement in the document that;
"We believe that the main damage was caused to the McCann arguidos, who lost the possibility to prove what they have protested since they were constituted arguidos: their innocence towards the fateful event; the investigation was also disturbed, because said facts remain unclarified."
So their innocence wasn't proved at all, according to that paragraph, and that's one of the reasons why the SC judges corrected the archiving dispatch to 277/2; insufficient evidence.
In support of the SC judges, it was mostly in the UK that the archiving procedure was reported as having cleared the arguidos. In Portugal it was reported correctly from the beginning as being due to insufficient evidence.
Portugal's attorney general, Fernando José Pinto Monteiro, said there was insufficient evidence to continue the police case.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2008/jul/21/madeleinemccann.internationalcrime
-
The difference between 277/1 and 277/2 seems quite subtle to me, but the McCann team said that the use of 277/1 was correct because the investigation had gathered enough evidence to prove the arguidos innocent.
"As far as the appellants are aware of, the archiving at stake was carried out, in the course of the investigation, because sufficient proof had been gathered that the then arguidos did not commit any facts of a criminal relevance and in any way whatsoever, this conclusion substantiating an archiving for factual reasons"
http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/Annulment_request.htm
They are ignoring, however the quite clear statement in the document that;
"We believe that the main damage was caused to the McCann arguidos, who lost the possibility to prove what they have protested since they were constituted arguidos: their innocence towards the fateful event; the investigation was also disturbed, because said facts remain unclarified."
So their innocence wasn't proved at all, according to that paragraph, and that's one of the reasons why the SC judges corrected the archiving dispatch to 277/2; insufficient evidence.
In support of the SC judges, it was mostly in the UK that the archiving procedure was reported as having cleared the arguidos. In Portugal it was reported correctly from the beginning as being due to insufficient evidence.
Portugal's attorney general, Fernando José Pinto Monteiro, said there was insufficient evidence to continue the police case.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2008/jul/21/madeleinemccann.internationalcrime
How could anyone be not innocent of 2 separate crimes? RM was suspected of abduction. McCanns were suspected of concealing a cadaver. Until the nature of any crime was determined, RM was innocent re. concealing a cadaver & the McCanns were innocent re. abduction. 277/1 was correct & stood unchallenged for 9 years. IMO.
-
The difference between 277/1 and 277/2 seems quite subtle to me, but the McCann team said that the use of 277/1 was correct because the investigation had gathered enough evidence to prove the arguidos innocent.
"As far as the appellants are aware of, the archiving at stake was carried out, in the course of the investigation, because sufficient proof had been gathered that the then arguidos did not commit any facts of a criminal relevance and in any way whatsoever, this conclusion substantiating an archiving for factual reasons"
http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/Annulment_request.htm
They are ignoring, however the quite clear statement in the document that;
"We believe that the main damage was caused to the McCann arguidos, who lost the possibility to prove what they have protested since they were constituted arguidos: their innocence towards the fateful event; the investigation was also disturbed, because said facts remain unclarified."
So their innocence wasn't proved at all, according to that paragraph, and that's one of the reasons why the SC judges corrected the archiving dispatch to 277/2; insufficient evidence.
In support of the SC judges, it was mostly in the UK that the archiving procedure was reported as having cleared the arguidos. In Portugal it was reported correctly from the beginning as being due to insufficient evidence.
Portugal's attorney general, Fernando José Pinto Monteiro, said there was insufficient evidence to continue the police case.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2008/jul/21/madeleinemccann.internationalcrime
Hang on, I hadn't twigged at the time what the discussion re 277/1 or 277/2 was about on here over the past pages.
So... am I correct in thinking the the Supreme Court judges checking through legal argument in a civil case, decided that the public prosecutor's* ruling had, erm, got that aspect of their legal ruling wrong... on a criminal case that the court was at pains to state was outwith their remit, but from which they nonetheless quoted bits?
Seriously?? lol
Was there an official answer to this "annulment request"? Or not yet...? Only 16 months later, after all.
* Correction public prosecutor, not AG.
-
Therefore, after all seen, analysed and duly pondered, with all that is left exposed, it is determined:
a) The archiving of the Process concerning arguido Robert James Queriol Eveleigh Murat, because there are no indications of the practise of any crime under the dispositions of article 277 number 1 of the Penal Process Code;
b) The archiving of the Process concerning Arguidos Gerald Patrick McCann and Kate Marie Healy, because there are no indications of the practise of any crime under the dispositions of article 277 number 1 of the Penal Process Code.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/LEGAL_SUMMARY.htm
Just copying those articles here to avoid having to hunt for them every time. I've taken the extract from the CÓDIGO DE PROCESSO PENAL Lei 48/2007, de 29 de Agosto one.
Artigo 277.o
Arquivamento do inquérito
1 — O Ministério Público procede, por despacho, ao arquivamento do inquérito, logo que tiver recolhido prova bastante de se não ter verificado crime, de o arguido não o ter praticado a qualquer título ou de ser legalmente inadmissível o procedimento.
2 — O inquérito é igualmente arquivado se não tiver sido possível ao Ministério Público obter indícios suficientes da verificação de crime ou de quem foram os agentes.
68
3 — O despacho de arquivamento é comunicado ao arguido, ao assistente, ao denunciante com faculdade de se constituir assistente e a quem tenha manifestado o propósito de deduzir pedido de indemnização civil nos termos do artigo 75.o, bem como ao respectivo defensor ou advogado.
-
I wonder if that could be the basis for an application to the ECtHR? Not quite sure under which of the articles, however.
Do Supreme Courts reviewing a civil case usually change the Attorney General's ruling on a criminal one because of a knuckle-rapping paragraph related to witnesses and assumed that the AG and his deputy hadn't weighed everything up?
-
I wonder if that could be the basis for an application to the ECtHR? Not quite sure under which of the articles, however.
Do Supreme Courts reviewing a civil case usually change the Attorney General's ruling on a criminal one because of a knuckle-rapping paragraph related to witnesses and assumed that the AG and his deputy hadn't weighed everything up?
If that were to be the case, then it has absolutely nothing to do with Amaral's stupendous win in the Portuguese Court
-
If that were to be the case, then it has absolutely nothing to do with Amaral's stupendous win in the Portuguese Court
Until now, I couldn't think why it might impact on him, either.
However, if that decision to suddenly come to the conclusion that the AG and the deputy didn't know what they were talking about and changed part of the ruling, and if that change then altered the course of the SC's reasoning for its own ruling... what then?
It would still be a case against Portugal and not him, in any case, AFAIK. If the SC rules in your favour and you get to keep your money, then could PT then ask you to give it back, if it were determined that they'd screwed up? Or not?
I haven't looked into that yet.
But what does an annulment mean in practical terms?
-
Until now, I couldn't think why it might impact on him, either.
However, if that decision to suddenly come to the conclusion that the AG and the deputy didn't know what they were talking about and changed part of the ruling, and if that change then altered the course of the SC's reasoning for its own ruling... what then?
It would still be a case against Portugal and not him, in any case, AFAIK. If the SC rules in your favour and you get to keep your money, then could PT then ask you to give it back, if it were determined that they'd screwed up? Or not?
I haven't looked into that yet.
But what does an annulment mean in practical terms?
What money ? His own which was sequestered? His lawyer’s fees ? What money are you talking about ?
-
Snip
b) The archiving of the Process concerning Arguidos Gerald Patrick McCann and Kate Marie Healy, because there are no indications of the practise of any crime under the dispositions of article 277 number 1 of the Penal Process Code.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/LEGAL_SUMMARY.htm
Snip
The words indicate 277/2.
-
What money ? His own to was sequestered? His lawyer’s fees ? What money are you talking about ?
It can sometimes get complicated with two connected threads. On the other thread there was a recent discussion as to whether his money had been released yet or whether it was still withheld due to this apparent ECtHR application.
Anyway, that was just a thought that popped into my head because of the other thread. On this one, I'm more interested in whether what G-Unit brought up could be the basis of an acceptable application and, if so, how that would be judged.
-
The words indicate 277/2.
Why? There are two identical paragraphs (a and b) in the archival ruling as one concerns Murat and the other Kate and Gerry. Both are 277/1.
-
It can sometimes get complicated with two connected threads. On the other thread there was a recent discussion as to whether his money had been released yet or whether it was still withheld due to this apparent ECtHR application.
Anyway, that was just a thought that popped into my head because of the other thread. On this one, I'm more interested in whether what G-Unit brought up could be the basis of an acceptable application and, if so, how that would be judged.
I'm working my way through the annulment request because that's where their case seems to be set out. There are two points made, both connected to the archiving dispatch.
They seem to be arguing that it declared them innocent (which is connected to the 277/1 or 2 point)
They also seem to be arguing that such a dispatch has the same legal standing as a court judgement, which the SC judges also rejected.
Somewhere in the mix is the presumption of innocence also.
The Attorney General didn't write the archiving dispatch, by the way, it was written to him by the prosecutors. He seems to have agreed with the SC judges, citing insufficient evidence as the reason for the archiving.
Portugal's attorney general, Fernando José Pinto Monteiro, said there was insufficient evidence to continue the police case.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2008/jul/21/madeleinemccann.internationalcrime
-
It can sometimes get complicated with two connected threads. On the other thread there was a recent discussion as to whether his money had been released yet or whether it was still withheld due to this apparent ECtHR application.
Anyway, that was just a thought that popped into my head because of the other thread. On this one, I'm more interested in whether what G-Unit brought up could be the basis of an acceptable application and, if so, how that would be judged.
Are you really suggesting that Amaral would have his own money taken from him again if the ECHR rules against Portugal. Really ? Why ?
-
Why? There are two identical paragraphs (a and b) in the archival ruling as one concerns Murat and the other Kate and Gerry. Both are 277/1.
277/1 is used when enough evidence has been gathered. 277/2 is used when it hasn't been possible to gather enough evidence.
The McCann's friends and acquaintances prevented the gathering of 'enough' evidence by refusing to attend the reconstitution. The PJ Final Report makes that quite clear;
Addressing now, and specifically, the question relative to the diligence known as the "reconstitution of the facts" (Article 150º of the Penal Process Code), which was not performed due to the refusal of some of the integral members of the holiday group to return to our country
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/P_J_FINAL_REPORT.htm
Their refusal halted the gathering of evidence and led to the archiving. That's why 277/2 was the correct article imo.
-
277/1 is used when enough evidence has been gathered. 277/2 is used when it hasn't been possible to gather enough evidence.
The McCann's friends and acquaintances prevented the gathering of 'enough' evidence by refusing to attend the reconstitution. The PJ Final Report makes that quite clear;
Addressing now, and specifically, the question relative to the diligence known as the "reconstitution of the facts" (Article 150º of the Penal Process Code), which was not performed due to the refusal of some of the integral members of the holiday group to return to our country
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/P_J_FINAL_REPORT.htm
Their refusal halted the gathering of evidence and led to the archiving. That's why 277/2 was the correct article imo.
It halted the gathering of sufficient evidence to use against the McCanns and their friends, is it any wonder some of them refused to attend?
-
So is it fair to say that it is down to the Tapas 7 that the McCanns are in the situation they now find themselves?
-
So is it fair to say that it is down to the Tapas 7 that the McCanns are in the situation they now find themselves?
Banged up in a Portuguese jail you mean? Oh wait...
-
So is it fair to say that it is down to the Tapas 7 that the McCanns are in the situation they now find themselves?
That’s the largest irony jassi.
-
It halted the gathering of sufficient evidence to use against the McCanns and their friends, is it any wonder some of them refused to attend?
On the other hand it could have allowed the authorities to gather enough evidence;
to dismiss once and for all any doubts that may subsist concerning the innocence of the missing [child's] parents.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/LEGAL_SUMMARY.htm
Short term gain, long term loss in my opinion. The doubts weren't dismissed, so the archiving dispatch didn't 'clear' them as they claimed in the libel trial.
-
On the other hand it could have allowed the authorities to gather enough evidence;
to dismiss once and for all any doubts that may subsist concerning the innocence of the missing [child's] parents.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/LEGAL_SUMMARY.htm
Short term gain, long term loss in my opinion. The doubts weren't dismissed, so the archiving dispatch didn't 'clear' them as they claimed in the libel trial.
Who'd have friends, huh?
-
On the other hand it could have allowed the authorities to gather enough evidence;
to dismiss once and for all any doubts that may subsist concerning the innocence of the missing [child's] parents.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/LEGAL_SUMMARY.htm
Short term gain, long term loss in my opinion. The doubts weren't dismissed, so the archiving dispatch didn't 'clear' them as they claimed in the libel trial.
Perhaps you could explain how a reconstruction would have removed all the doubts? Rhetorical question. Of course it couldn't!
-
Perhaps you could explain how a reconstruction would have removed all the doubts? Rhetorical question. Of course it couldn't!
I didn't say it would, I said it may have done. That's not even the point, which is that the refusal halted the investigation by preventing the gathering of evidence.
-
It could have demonstrated how accurate the Tapas timeline was.
-
Perhaps you could explain how a reconstruction would have removed all the doubts? Rhetorical question. Of course it couldn't!
I think it is the other way around. The fact that they started resisting to attend the reconstruction removed the doubts the PJ had that the Tapas 9 were involved IMO.
If they were innocent they would all agree to attend, but they resisted.
-
I think it is the other way around. The fact that they started resisting to attend the reconstruction removed the doubts the PJ had that the Tapas 9 were involved IMO.
If they were innocent they would all agree to attend, but they resisted.
I think that a fair assessment.
-
I think it is the other way around. The fact that they started resisting to attend the reconstruction removed the doubts the PJ had that the Tapas 9 were involved IMO.
If they were innocent they would all agree to attend, but they resisted.
You don’t half talk some nonsense Rob.....I refuse to give my DNA....oh you must be innocent then. Ridiculous.
-
It could have demonstrated how accurate the Tapas timeline was.
And then what?
-
And then what?
Did the Portuguese outmaneuver the group and their legal advisers? It's a possibility. Proposing the reconstitution and having it refused resulted in the archiving of the case because the witnesses refused to partake. They prevented the PJ from gathering evidence about the timeline. Hence 'insufficient evidence'
-
And then what?
As it didn't happen, who knows ?
-
As it didn't happen, who knows ?
Well there would have been two possible outcomes - either it would have proved the timeline or it wouldn’t. Neither outcome would have settled the matter of the McCanns innocence or guilt. Agreed?
-
Not on its own, but might well have led to further investigation. That is , after all, the way police forces work - they question and probe to get at the truth.
-
Not on its own, but might well have led to further investigation. That is , after all, the way police forces work - they question and probe to get at the truth.
They had ample opportunity to do that anyway, a reconstitution would have achieved little or nothing IMO.
-
Not on its own, but might well have led to further investigation. That is , after all, the way police forces work - they question and probe to get at the truth.
They may also have been intrigued to watch Kate n co do the distance from tapas table to bedroom door within 30/40 seconds. maybe to ask them to join their Olympic team?
The claim at the time was it wouldn't help in the search for Madeleine, nice manoeuvre that, because the PJ didn't ask them over to take part in a search- well the search for the truth ,sure! They just brushed that aside. There was no valid reasons for them NOT to return.
-
They had ample opportunity to do that anyway, a reconstitution would have achieved little or nothing IMO.
So you have solved the case without a reconstruction or just offering an opinion for the sake of it?
We will wait and see if the case gets approved for the ECHR if and when it is read.
-
On the other hand it could have allowed the authorities to gather enough evidence;
to dismiss once and for all any doubts that may subsist concerning the innocence of the missing [child's] parents.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/LEGAL_SUMMARY.htm
Short term gain, long term loss in my opinion. The doubts weren't dismissed, so the archiving dispatch didn't 'clear' them as they claimed in the libel trial.
I'm trying to work out the subtleties between 277/1 and 277/2. I've tried to rephrase it slightly, with a bit of help from linguee to see if it's any clearer (assuming that I haven't distorted the meaning of the original in the process):
/1 The Public Ministry shall order the archival of the investigation as soon as there is sufficient evidence that no crime has been determined and that the arguido has not committed one in any way/ capacity (?), or... (irrelevant bla)
/2 The investigation shall also be archived if the Public Ministry has not been able to obtain sufficient indications that a crime has been committed or concerning the identity of its perpetrators.
IFF that's accurate, to me that would mean that upon weighing up the totality (which would have included the knuckle-rapping bit about the reconstruction), the prosecutors consciously opted for No. 1 - as all the available evidence had been examined, the investigation was conducted "with an enormous margin of error" and they were still no wiser as to what happened to her.
A key bit for me is this re the determination of a crime:
- Despite all of this, it was not possible to obtain any piece of evidence that would allow for a medium man, under the light of the criteria of logics, of normality and of the general rules of experience, to formulate any lucid, sensate, serious and honest conclusion about the circumstances under which the child was removed from the apartment (whether dead or alive, whether killed in a neglectful homicide or an intended homicide, whether the victim of a targeted abduction or an opportunistic abduction), nor even to produce a consistent prognosis about her destiny and inclusively - the most dramatic - to establish whether she is still alive or if she is dead, as seems more likely.
There was no evidence that the arguidos had committed a crime, as at the end of the day there was still no clue as to what type of crime.
For some reason, the SC latched onto the fact that the T7 + Jez declined the reconstruction to clarifiy x details and thus 'denied' their arguido friends the "possibility of proving their innocence".
(I doubt that the prosecutors hadn't read the correspondence as to why they weren't nuts about the prospect of another mediafest, plus quite possibly that the details that Rebelo wanted to check were somewhat unlikely to prove anything one way or another, anyway.) The SC wasn't concerned with how useful it may or may not have been in public - they seem to have just seen that phrase, IMO.
If that's the case, then I think they were wrong to have changed the legal provision under which the investigation got shelved.
-
I'm trying to work out the subtleties between 277/1 and 277/2. I've tried to rephrase it slightly, with a bit of help from linguee to see if it's any clearer (assuming that I haven't distorted the meaning of the original in the process):
/1 The Public Ministry shall order the archival of the investigation as soon as there is sufficient evidence that no crime has been determined and that the arguido has not committed one in any way/ capacity (?), or... (irrelevant bla)
/2 The investigation shall also be archived if the Public Ministry has not been able to obtain sufficient indications that a crime has been committed or concerning the identity of its perpetrators.
IFF that's accurate, to me that would mean that upon weighing up the totality (which would have included the knuckle-rapping bit about the reconstruction), the prosecutors consciously opted for No. 1 - as all the available evidence had been examined, the investigation was conducted "with an enormous margin of error" and they were still no wiser as to what happened to her.
A key bit for me is this re the determination of a crime:
- Despite all of this, it was not possible to obtain any piece of evidence that would allow for a medium man, under the light of the criteria of logics, of normality and of the general rules of experience, to formulate any lucid, sensate, serious and honest conclusion about the circumstances under which the child was removed from the apartment (whether dead or alive, whether killed in a neglectful homicide or an intended homicide, whether the victim of a targeted abduction or an opportunistic abduction), nor even to produce a consistent prognosis about her destiny and inclusively - the most dramatic - to establish whether she is still alive or if she is dead, as seems more likely.
There was no evidence that the arguidos had committed a crime, as at the end of the day there was still no clue as to what type of crime.
For some reason, the SC latched onto the fact that the T7 + Jez declined the reconstruction to clarifiy x details and thus 'denied' their arguido friends the "possibility of proving their innocence".
(I doubt that the prosecutors hadn't read the correspondence as to why they weren't nuts about the prospect of another mediafest, plus quite possibly that the details that Rebelo wanted to check were somewhat unlikely to prove anything one way or another, anyway.) The SC wasn't concerned with how useful it may or may not have been in public - they seem to have just seen that phrase, IMO.
If that's the case, then I think they were wrong to have changed the legal provision under which the investigation got shelved.
I agree the differentiation between 277/1 and 277/2 seems a bit arcane but if you fire up the old fiddle and prepare a few pipes [or stick a bit of Horace Silver on the old ipod in my case] it becomes clear I think... *%87
Anyway cop a noss at Section 3.1 in this 2007 document. Given it's correct it is fairly straightforward.
http://www.ecba.org/extdocserv/projects/JusticeForum/Portugal180309.pdf
-
I agree the differentiation between 277/1 and 277/2 seems a bit arcane but if you fire up the old fiddle and prepare a few pipes [or stick a bit of Horace Silver on the old ipod in my case] it becomes clear I think... *%87
Anyway cop a noss at Section 3.1 in this 2007 document. Given it's correct it is fairly straightforward.
http://www.ecba.org/extdocserv/projects/JusticeForum/Portugal180309.pdf
Thanks, I had it bookmarked but I haven't read it in a while.
From what I've read, in days gone by, people could be chucked in prison on remand and be forgotten about for ages, hence the tightening up of all the deadlines re the investigation.
Lol - will have to hunt down who Horace Silver is.
-
I agree the differentiation between 277/1 and 277/2 seems a bit arcane but if you fire up the old fiddle and prepare a few pipes [or stick a bit of Horace Silver on the old ipod in my case] it becomes clear I think... *%87
Anyway cop a noss at Section 3.1 in this 2007 document. Given it's correct it is fairly straightforward.
http://www.ecba.org/extdocserv/projects/JusticeForum/Portugal180309.pdf
Yes Alice, sec 3 is very clear and very easy to read and understand.
-
Did the Portuguese outmaneuver the group and their legal advisers? It's a possibility. Proposing the reconstitution and having it refused resulted in the archiving of the case because the witnesses refused to partake. They prevented the PJ from gathering evidence about the timeline. Hence 'insufficient evidence'
They can construct a timeline on a computer, though.
-
I'm trying to work out the subtleties between 277/1 and 277/2. I've tried to rephrase it slightly, with a bit of help from linguee to see if it's any clearer (assuming that I haven't distorted the meaning of the original in the process):
/1 The Public Ministry shall order the archival of the investigation as soon as there is sufficient evidence that no crime has been determined and that the arguido has not committed one in any way/ capacity (?), or... (irrelevant bla)
/2 The investigation shall also be archived if the Public Ministry has not been able to obtain sufficient indications that a crime has been committed or concerning the identity of its perpetrators.
IFF that's accurate, to me that would mean that upon weighing up the totality (which would have included the knuckle-rapping bit about the reconstruction), the prosecutors consciously opted for No. 1 - as all the available evidence had been examined, the investigation was conducted "with an enormous margin of error" and they were still no wiser as to what happened to her.
A key bit for me is this re the determination of a crime:
- Despite all of this, it was not possible to obtain any piece of evidence that would allow for a medium man, under the light of the criteria of logics, of normality and of the general rules of experience, to formulate any lucid, sensate, serious and honest conclusion about the circumstances under which the child was removed from the apartment (whether dead or alive, whether killed in a neglectful homicide or an intended homicide, whether the victim of a targeted abduction or an opportunistic abduction), nor even to produce a consistent prognosis about her destiny and inclusively - the most dramatic - to establish whether she is still alive or if she is dead, as seems more likely.
There was no evidence that the arguidos had committed a crime, as at the end of the day there was still no clue as to what type of crime.
For some reason, the SC latched onto the fact that the T7 + Jez declined the reconstruction to clarifiy x details and thus 'denied' their arguido friends the "possibility of proving their innocence".
(I doubt that the prosecutors hadn't read the correspondence as to why they weren't nuts about the prospect of another mediafest, plus quite possibly that the details that Rebelo wanted to check were somewhat unlikely to prove anything one way or another, anyway.) The SC wasn't concerned with how useful it may or may not have been in public - they seem to have just seen that phrase, IMO.
If that's the case, then I think they were wrong to have changed the legal provision under which the investigation got shelved.
1 says evidence of no crime or evidence of none involvement
2 says no evidence of crime or involvement
The bit you quoted in italics is fairly clearly 2 IMO.
-
Thanks, I had it bookmarked but I haven't read it in a while.
From what I've read, in days gone by, people could be chucked in prison on remand and be forgotten about for ages, hence the tightening up of all the deadlines re the investigation.
Lol - will have to hunt down who Horace Silver is.
Like this
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3BTNVtHK3IA
or this even
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SmO2pM20MrU !!
I am more interested in the process and how it is supposed to work. Processes all become a SNAFU with too much operator intervention that overrides interlocks because idiots always know best! Then of course the original process may not have passed the LBJ test.
-
They can construct a timeline on a computer, though.
I think you are missing a couple of valid points.
1. the tapas would do this in real time- why do they not want this? They claim:
1a it wouldn't help in the search for Madeliene
1b it would be too upsetting for K and G
2.It would show up major discrepancies like JTs pyjama memory,improving after discussions with K and G... where Gerry and Jez were when she passed (they disagreed about this on the panorama reconstruction)- it didn't seem to be too upsetting doing it for TV.
* a computer time line would not be accepted as evidence of the tapas behaviour during the time-line.
-
One simple question. What was the nature of the verified crime?
-
They can construct a timeline on a computer, though.
6:4 they did and had a copy printed off ready for the reconstitution.
-
One simple question. What was the nature of the verified crime?
something along the lines of a missing child and parents claim of abduction...
I don't suppose they would discuss a live investigation with suspects- but a co ordinator did write a book discussing what line of thoughts were...it included staging an abduction.
-
something along the lines of a missing child and parents claim of abduction...
I don't suppose they would discuss a live investigation with suspects- but a co ordinator did write a book discussing what line of thoughts were...it included staging an abduction.
So you would agree that the nature of the crime had not been verified & all options remained on the table at the time of archiving, including woke & wandered. IMO you cannot be "not innocent" of an undefined crime, confirmed by the fact all 3 arguidos had their status lifted under the same filing article, despite the differing nature of the crime(s) they were questioned about.
-
Like this
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3BTNVtHK3IA
or this even
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SmO2pM20MrU !!
I am more interested in the process and how it is supposed to work. Processes all become a SNAFU with too much operator intervention that overrides interlocks because idiots always know best! Then of course the original process may not have passed the LBJ test.
What's the LBJ test?
PS Thanks for the links to Horace. ;)
-
So you would agree that the nature of the crime had not been verified & all options remained on the table at the time of archiving, including woke & wandered. IMO you cannot be "not innocent" of an undefined crime, confirmed by the fact all 3 arguidos had their status lifted under the same filing article, despite the differing nature of the crime(s) they were questioned about.
No, I don't agree because I was not privy to all the investigation information the PJ had and what crime/s they were looking at which required further evidence...Sorry.
-
I think you are missing a couple of valid points.
1. the tapas would do this in real time- why do they not want this? They claim:
1a it wouldn't help in the search for Madeliene
1b it would be too upsetting for K and G
2.It would show up major discrepancies like JTs pyjama memory,improving after discussions with K and G... where Gerry and Jez were when she passed (they disagreed about this on the panorama reconstruction)- it didn't seem to be too upsetting doing it for TV.
* a computer time line would not be accepted as evidence of the tapas behaviour during the time-line.
They could have instructed them to do whatever in 10 different ways, walk faster or slower, make more noise, change the lights back, put that huge tree back... and chosen whichever best fit the latest theory (although unlikely under Rebelo). How would it have helped find Madeleine?
-
something along the lines of a missing child and parents claim of abduction...
I don't suppose they would discuss a live investigation with suspects- but a co ordinator did write a book discussing what line of thoughts were...it included staging an abduction.
So you think they should instruct them to simulate staging an abduction?
-
They could have instructed them to do whatever in 10 different ways, walk faster or slower, make more noise, change the lights back, put that huge tree back... and chosen whichever best fit the latest theory (although unlikely under Rebelo). How would it have helped find Madeleine?
True. Rebelo always seemed to suspect parental/friend involvement.
-
You don’t half talk some nonsense Rob.....I refuse to give my DNA....oh you must be innocent then. Ridiculous.
That analogy doesn't seem to make sense to me. "I refuse to give my DNA....oh you must be innocent guilty then." would be more in line.
-
They had ample opportunity to do that anyway, a reconstitution would have achieved little or nothing IMO.
I can't see any real intention by the PJ to do a reconstruction. IMO they were just seeing whether the Tapas 7 and others were willing to attend.
-
Carana your lack of a true understanding of Portuguese is showing. The right translation for 277-1 is : as soon as enough evidence is gathered to confirm that no crime was perpetrated. verificar = confirm, not determine
For instance X calls the police to say that he found Y dead and suspects Z to be the murderer.
The police finds out that Y wasn't murdered but committed suicide. The prosecutor produces a filing order shelving the investigation using the 277/1.
-
6:4 they did and had a copy printed off ready for the reconstitution.
@)(++(*
-
What's the LBJ test?
PS Thanks for the links to Horace. ;)
"You do not examine legislation in the light of the benefits it will convey if properly administered, but in the light of the wrongs it would do and the harms it would cause if improperly administered".
Tony Blair once wanted to have a law where a person could be arrested "if it looked like they were about to commit a crime".
"Liberals" by default will provide all the legal means whereby totalitarians can legitimately and easily take over...OT I know.
-
True. Rebelo always seemed to suspect parental/friend involvement.
I've no idea what he actually thought. IMO, he got catapulted in but couldn't take it from scratch as there were arguidos and the clock was ticking. He basicly had to get to the bottom of as many loose ends as possible to clarify if there was any evidence of a crime and whether any of the arguidos were involved. If so then slap whomever with charges, if not, the investigation would have to be shelved. There was simply not enough time to start going systematically through every potential lead as the UK police have been doing (nor the resources).
-
"You do not examine legislation in the light of the benefits it will convey if properly administered, but in the light of the wrongs it would do and the harms it would cause if improperly administered".
Tony Blair once wanted to have a law where a person could be arrested "if it looked like they were about to commit a crime".
"Liberals" by default will provide all the legal means whereby totalitarians can legitimately and easily take over...OT I know.
Ok, thanks.
-
I've no idea what he actually thought. IMO, he got catapulted in but couldn't take it from scratch as there were arguidos and the clock was ticking. He basicly had to get to the bottom of as many loose ends as possible to clarify if there was any evidence of a crime and whether any of the arguidos were involved. If so then slap whomever with charges, if not, the investigation would have to be shelved. There was simply not enough time to start going systematically through every potential lead as the UK police have been doing (nor the resources).
I don’t remember Rebelo asking Murat to a reconstitution. Do you ? The McCanns and their friends were asked. What does that tell you ?
-
I don’t remember Rebelo asking Murat to a reconstitution. Do you ? The McCanns and their friends were asked. What does that tell you ?
Staying at home with your mum shouldn't be too difficult.
-
I can't see any real intention by the PJ to do a reconstruction. IMO they were just seeing whether the Tapas 7 and others were willing to attend.
An investigation is archived when enough evidence has been gathered to reach certain conclusions (277/1), or when it hasn't been possible to gather enough evidence (277/2)
By refusing to attend the reconstitution the witnesses prevented the PJ from gathering evidence. (277/2)
It could be that the PJ knew the request would be refused and the significance of that to the archiving process. It's clear that the witnesses, suspects and their lawyers didn't understand it's significance.
-
In it's rejection of the request for annulment of it's ruling the SC made it's position on the archiving dispatch clear again;
In fact, that dispatch was not proclaimed by virtue of the Public Ministry having gained the conviction that the appellants had not committed any crime (cf. art. 277 of the CPP).
The filing, in this case, was decided because it was not possible for Public Ministry to obtain sufficient evidence of the practice of crimes by the appellants (cf. the cited art. 277-2)
http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/STJ_21_03_2017_Rejected.htm
If 277/1 was the correct article as the McCann team argued, the investigation couldn't have been reopened;
The fact that the aforementioned “memorandum for the media”, published by the Attorney General office on the same day as the filing order, informed that the investigation could be reopened “if new evidence arose that could lead to serious, pertinent and consequential proceedings”, precisely points out that the order was issued pursuant to article 277-2 of the CPP.
In fact, if the investigation had been closed according to the terms of the first paragraph of the same article, it could not be reopened
http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/STJ_21_03_2017_Rejected.htm
-
In it's rejection of the request for annulment of it's ruling the SC made it's position on the archiving dispatch clear again;
In fact, that dispatch was not proclaimed by virtue of the Public Ministry having gained the conviction that the appellants had not committed any crime (cf. art. 277 of the CPP).
The filing, in this case, was decided because it was not possible for Public Ministry to obtain sufficient evidence of the practice of crimes by the appellants (cf. the cited art. 277-2)
http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/STJ_21_03_2017_Rejected.htm
If 277/1 was the correct article as the McCann team argued, the investigation couldn't have been reopened;
The fact that the aforementioned “memorandum for the media”, published by the Attorney General office on the same day as the filing order, informed that the investigation could be reopened “if new evidence arose that could lead to serious, pertinent and consequential proceedings”, precisely points out that the order was issued pursuant to article 277-2 of the CPP.
In fact, if the investigation had been closed according to the terms of the first paragraph of the same article, it could not be reopened
http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/STJ_21_03_2017_Rejected.htm
The case was closed under item 2771/1...and it was reopened before the SC changed it to 2771/2.
-
The case was closed under item 2771/1...and it was reopened before the SC changed it to 2771/2.
The archiving dispatch quoted 277/1. The attorney General's press release at the time described 277/2. It seems the mistake wasn't noticed at the time.
-
The archiving dispatch quoted 277/1. The attorney General's press release at the time described 277/2. It seems the mistake wasn't noticed at the time.
You are avoiding the point... The case was re-opened yet it was, archived under 277/1...which contradicts your claim..
Do you have, a, cite to support your claim that the case could not be reopened under 277/1....because it was...
Was, this just another mistake
-
So according to gunit a case can not be reopened if filed under 277/1 .. It doesn't make sense
So if a case is archived and someone confesses the case can't be Re opened.... That can't be true
More like the case can only be Re opened if new evidence cones to light... That makes sense all round
-
The archiving dispatch quoted 277/1. The attorney General's press release at the time described 277/2. It seems the mistake wasn't noticed at the time.
in your opinion...which imo..is looking a little suspect
-
You are avoiding the point... The case was re-opened yet it was, archived under 277/1...which contradicts your claim..
Do you have, a, cite to support your claim that the case could not be reopened under 277/1....because it was...
Was, this just another mistake
In fact, if the investigation had been closed according to the terms of the first paragraph of the same article, it could not be reopened (cf. CPP, reviewed, 2016, 2nd ed., by Henriques Gaspar, Santos Cabral, Maia Costa, Oliveira Mendes, Pereira Madeira and Henriques da Graça, pp.929, 932-3.
http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/STJ_21_03_2017_Rejected.htm
Article 277 - Archiving of the investigation
1 - The Public Ministry shall, by dispatch, close the investigation, as soon as it has gathered sufficient evidence that the crime was not confirmed, that the arguido did not practice it in any way or that the procedure is legally inadmissible
http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/Annulment_request.htm
It's obvious that a crime was committed, because Madeleine disappeared. There was no evidence saying that a crime wasn't committed.
Although the crime wasn't identified, it wasn't possible to gather 'sufficient evidence' to prove that the arguidos 'did not practice it (the unidentified crime) in any way.'
-
In fact, if the investigation had been closed according to the terms of the first paragraph of the same article, it could not be reopened (cf. CPP, reviewed, 2016, 2nd ed., by Henriques Gaspar, Santos Cabral, Maia Costa, Oliveira Mendes, Pereira Madeira and Henriques da Graça, pp.929, 932-3.
http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/STJ_21_03_2017_Rejected.htm
Article 277 - Archiving of the investigation
1 - The Public Ministry shall, by dispatch, close the investigation, as soon as it has gathered sufficient evidence that the crime was not confirmed, that the arguido did not practice it in any way or that the procedure is legally inadmissible
http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/Annulment_request.htm
It's obvious that a crime was committed, because Madeleine disappeared. There was no evidence saying that a crime wasn't committed.
Although the crime wasn't identified, it wasn't possible to gather 'sufficient evidence' to prove that the arguidos 'did not practice it (the unidentified crime) in any way.'
Could you explain how the investigation was re-opened... On what basis
I haven't had time to check the reliability of your cite... Is the cite you quoted made by the court or is it something added by someone else.... An amaral supporter perhaps
-
In fact, if the investigation had been closed according to the terms of the first paragraph of the same article, it could not be reopened (cf. CPP, reviewed, 2016, 2nd ed., by Henriques Gaspar, Santos Cabral, Maia Costa, Oliveira Mendes, Pereira Madeira and Henriques da Graça, pp.929, 932-3.
http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/STJ_21_03_2017_Rejected.htm
Article 277 - Archiving of the investigation
1 - The Public Ministry shall, by dispatch, close the investigation, as soon as it has gathered sufficient evidence that the crime was not confirmed, that the arguido did not practice it in any way or that the procedure is legally inadmissible
http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/Annulment_request.htm
It's obvious that a crime was committed, because Madeleine disappeared. There was no evidence saying that a crime wasn't committed.
Although the crime wasn't identified, it wasn't possible to gather 'sufficient evidence' to prove that the arguidos 'did not practice it (the unidentified crime) in any way.'
In theory then it should be possible to write a book about Robert Murat’s involvement in the disappearance of Madeleine McCann and get away with it, in Portugal at any rate.
-
Judiciary Police press statement Polícia Judiciária
(http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/Nigel/sitebuilderpictures/pj241013.jpg)
With thanks to Joana Morais for translation
Similarly to what happens in all the cases of missing children, notwithstanding the formal archival of the investigation concerning her disappearance, and as was always publicly stated, the Judiciary Police continued to be attentive to any and all information likely to enable the understanding of the whereabouts of the minor Madeleine McCann, the circumstances in which her disappearance occurred and the identity of its author(s).
With that objective, the National Director of the Judiciary Police, in March 2011, assigned to a team of investigators from the North Directorate a task to re-examine the whole wide range of information contained in the inquest, with the aim to identify information whose further understanding could be revealed useful and possible.
That reanalysis task, which took place during the last two and a half years, helped identify new evidence, which by imposing further investigation, meet the requirements set by article 279º no 1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for the reopening of the investigation.
The proposal was made in conformity to the Hon. Prosecutor in the district of Portimão, the same was granted.
October 24, 2013
http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/Nigel/id466.htm
-
Judiciary Police press statement Polícia Judiciária
(http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/Nigel/sitebuilderpictures/pj241013.jpg)
With thanks to Joana Morais for translation
Similarly to what happens in all the cases of missing children, notwithstanding the formal archival of the investigation concerning her disappearance, and as was always publicly stated, the Judiciary Police continued to be attentive to any and all information likely to enable the understanding of the whereabouts of the minor Madeleine McCann, the circumstances in which her disappearance occurred and the identity of its author(s).
With that objective, the National Director of the Judiciary Police, in March 2011, assigned to a team of investigators from the North Directorate a task to re-examine the whole wide range of information contained in the inquest, with the aim to identify information whose further understanding could be revealed useful and possible.
That reanalysis task, which took place during the last two and a half years, helped identify new evidence, which by imposing further investigation, meet the requirements set by article 279º no 1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for the reopening of the investigation.
The proposal was made in conformity to the Hon. Prosecutor in the district of Portimão, the same was granted.
October 24, 2013
http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/Nigel/id466.htm
This confirms my posts on the subject
-
it looks like a mistake to me.
-
it looks like a mistake to me.
A mistake by who... And why... It looks to me as though gunit is mistaken . The cite she has given looks like opinion by someone... Not sure who... I think she thought what she had posted was an official document
-
it looks like a mistake to me.
A case of 'thick finger' at work on the keyboard perhaps ?
-
A case of 'thick finger' at work on the keyboard perhaps ?
1 and 2 are side by side on the keyboard. I find spelling mistakes are from hitting a letter key right beside the correct key.
-
This confirms my posts on the subject
How?
-
How?
It confirms the investigation was opened under 279/1...when you claimed, it was not possible
You need to look at your cite again.... It contains official statements.. But with added unnoficial comment... It looks to me as though your cite is unnoficial comment
-
It confirms the investigation was opened under 279/1...when you claimed, it was not possible
You need to look at your cite again.... It contains official statements.. But with added unnoficial comment... It looks to me as though your cite is unnoficial comment
Too many spelling mistakes!
-
Too many spelling mistakes!
The topic is the ECHR... Not spelling... Certain posters make continual speling and grammatical errors... I don't pointbthem out... It's pointless
-
The topic is the ECHR... Not spelling... Certain posters make continual speling and grammatical errors... I don't pointbthem out... It's pointless
We still need to be able to read the posts.
-
We still need to be able to read the posts.
I'm sure people can..... I post quickly while I'm doing other things.... Shall I now start to point out other's spelling mistakes and derail all the threads.
-
Im sure people can..... I post quickly while I'm doing other things.... Shall I now start to point out others spelling mistakes and derail all the threads
Look sometimes I edit posts made by others just to correct spelling mistakes. Take more care please.
-
Look sometimes I edit posts made by others just to correct spelling mistakes. Take more care please.
I have to post at speed..... I will not take notice of... Take more care... I also hapen to be slightly dyslexic... Spelling is not a forum rule.... Criticising other posters is... Now get back on topic
-
Ref posts #1273 & # 1274.
Does anyone know what Article 279 is about?
That appears to be one used to re-open the case if the blurb(cite)provided is to be believed.
It's worth mentioning yet again that Judge Emilia found the reopening the case on emergence of fresh evidence was not proven.
-
Ref posts #1273 & # 1274.
Does anyone know what Article 279 is about?
That appears to be one used to re-open the case if the blurb(cite)provided is to be believed.
It's worth mentioning yet again that Judge Emilia found the reopening the case on emergence of fresh evidence was not proven.
Can you actually quote her on that?
-
Ref posts #1273 & # 1274.
Does anyone know what Article 279 is about?
That appears to be one used to re-open the case if the blurb(cite)provided is to be believed.
It's worth mentioning yet again that Judge Emilia found the reopening the case on emergence of fresh evidence was not proven.
Weird - I thought the case could only reopen on the emergence of fresh evidence, so is the judge calling into question the legality of the Portuguese re-investigation?
-
Weird - I thought the case could only reopen on the emergence of fresh evidence, so is the judge calling into question the legality of the Portuguese re-investigation?
No they say it was reopened to recheck the evidence. (Pedro do Carmo says something like that in the 10 year anniversary documentary.) https://youtu.be/UFuhRil4dvc?t=4635
-
Weird - I thought the case could only reopen on the emergence of fresh evidence, so is the judge calling into question the legality of the Portuguese re-investigation?
The Portuguese claimed they had fresh evidence
-
It confirms the investigation was opened under 279/1...when you claimed, it was not possible
You need to look at your cite again.... It contains official statements.. But with added unnoficial comment... It looks to me as though your cite is unnoficial comment
The SC judges (not I) said that if the case were archived using 277/1 it couldn't be reopened;
In fact, if the investigation had been closed according to the terms of the first paragraph of the same article, it could not be reopened (cf. CPP, reviewed, 2016, 2nd ed., by Henriques Gaspar, Santos Cabral, Maia Costa, Oliveira Mendes, Pereira Madeira and Henriques da Graça, pp.929, 932-3.
http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/STJ_21_03_2017_Rejected.htm
The translation was provided by Anne Guedes and the original document is shown. If you are questioning the translation feel free to give your version.
Why did you quote 279/1? What is the relevance?
-
The Portuguese claimed they had fresh evidence
Cite please?
-
No they say it was reopened to recheck the evidence. (Pedro do Carmo says something like that in the 10 year anniversary documentary.) https://youtu.be/UFuhRil4dvc?t=4635
I'm almost certain you are wrong
-
The topic is the ECHR... Not spelling... Certain posters make continual speling and grammatical errors... I don't pointbthem out... It's pointless
If you did, you would be very busy with some posters.
I believe that as long as one can understand the gist of the post then spelling mistakes don't matter.
However I do find misspelling Madeleine's name rather irritating.
-
Cite please?
Om posting from a phone... I'm sure another knowledgable poster will be along soon to help... As I remember it related to the tractor driver
-
@Robbitybob & @Vertigo Swirls.
I have responded to the bit about quoting Judge Emilia several tmes. It has been scattered over this forum like bleedin' confetti for about two years.
How would I know what the judge is doing/has done?. She did it two years ago so one presumes some are a bit slow on the uptake if they have still not clocked it.
Article 279 under which the case was reopened if we believe the cite provided deals with (seemingly)
"Criminal Liability of Corporate Entities under Portuguese Law"
-
No they say it was reopened to recheck the evidence. (Pedro do Carmo says something like that in the 10 year anniversary documentary.) https://youtu.be/UFuhRil4dvc?t=4635
The Public Ministry determined the reopening of the inquest concerning the disappearance of the minor Madeleine McCann, according to article 279º, no 1, of the Code of Criminal Procedure, following a proposal of the Judiciary Police and following the submission of new evidentiary elements which justify furthering the investigation.
http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/Nigel/id466.htm
-
The Public Ministry determined the reopening of the inquest concerning the disappearance of the minor Madeleine McCann, according to article 279º, no 1, of the Code of Criminal Procedure, following a proposal of the Judiciary Police and following the submission of new evidentiary elements which justify furthering the investigation.
http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/Nigel/id466.htm
So new evidence
-
@Robbitybob & @Vertigo Swirls.
I have responded to the bit about quoting Judge Emilia several tmes. It has been scattered over this forum like bleedin' confetti for about two years.
How would I know what the judge is doing/has done?. She did it two years ago so one presumes some are a bit slow on the uptake if they have still not clocked it.
Article 279 under which the case was reopened if we believe the cite provided deals with (seemingly)
"Criminal Liability of Corporate Entities under Portuguese Law"
Sorry for asking!
-
@Robbitybob & @Vertigo Swirls.
I have responded to the bit about quoting Judge Emilia several tmes. It has been scattered over this forum like bleedin' confetti for about two years.
How would I know what the judge is doing/has done?. She did it two years ago so one presumes some are a bit slow on the uptake if they have still not clocked it.
Article 279 under which the case was reopened if we believe the cite provided deals with (seemingly)
"Criminal Liability of Corporate Entities under Portuguese Law"
That is odd isn't it?
-
That is odd isn't it?
Because it isn't true... Imo
-
Because it isn't true... Imo
Carana might be able to sort this mess.
-
@Robbitybob & @Vertigo Swirls.
I have responded to the bit about quoting Judge Emilia several tmes. It has been scattered over this forum like bleedin' confetti for about two years.
How would I know what the judge is doing/has done?. She did it two years ago so one presumes some are a bit slow on the uptake if they have still not clocked it.
Article 279 under which the case was reopened if we believe the cite provided deals with (seemingly)
"Criminal Liability of Corporate Entities under Portuguese Law"
Thank goodness for Anne Guedes (I could't find anything which made sense re 279);
Article 279 - Reopening of the investigation
1. Once the period referred to in the previous article has expired, the investigation may be reopened only if new evidence appears to invalidate the grounds invoked by the Public Ministry in the filing order.
http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/Annulment_request.htm
-
Thank goodness for Anne Guedes (I could't find anything which made sense re 279);
Article 279 - Reopening of the investigation
1. Once the period referred to in the previous article has expired, the investigation may be reopened only if new evidence appears to invalidate the grounds invoked by the Public Ministry in the filing order.
http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/Annulment_request.htm
So contrary to your posts... The investigation can be Re opened with new evidence.... As I have already posted today
-
So contrary to your posts... The investigation can be Re opened with new evidence.... As I have already posted today
Only " Once the period referred to in the previous article has expired" and I have not seen you prove that that clause was satisfied as yet.
-
Only " Once the period referred to in the previous article has expired" and I have not seen you prove that that clause was satisfied as yet.
Gunit said the case could not be Re opened under 279/1.....I said it could and have been proven right...the fact that the case has been re-opened is something of a clue that the conditions have been met
-
The reports down the years seem to blow hot and cold.
'He added that like the British police, Mr and Mrs McCann want the case to be reopened but it is 'up to the Portuguese authorities'.
But their hopes were dashed just hours later when Pedro do Carmo, deputy head of the criminal police department, said: 'There are no new elements at the moment that would allow for the reopening of the inquiry.'
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2135551/Madeleine-McCann-latest-news-Portuguese-police-refuse-open-case.html
So what happened between April 2012 and October 2013?
-
The reports down the years seem to blow hot and cold.
'He added that like the British police, Mr and Mrs McCann want the case to be reopened but it is 'up to the Portuguese authorities'.
But their hopes were dashed just hours later when Pedro do Carmo, deputy head of the criminal police department, said: 'There are no new elements at the moment that would allow for the reopening of the inquiry.'
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2135551/Madeleine-McCann-latest-news-Portuguese-police-refuse-open-case.html
So what happened between April 2012 and October 2013?
IMO... The PJ made sure they found some... In order, to satisfy SY
-
Gunit said the case could not be Re opened under 279/1.....I said it could and have been proven right...the fact that the case has been re-opened is something of a clue that the conditions have been met
No you have not. "Article 279 - Reopening of the investigation
1. Once the period referred to in the previous article has expired, the investigation may be reopened only if new evidence appears to invalidate the grounds invoked by the Public Ministry in the filing order."
That clause defines what happens once the period expires. You don't even know how long that period is.
-
No you have not. "Article 279 - Reopening of the investigation
1. Once the period referred to in the previous article has expired, the investigation may be reopened only if new evidence appears to invalidate the grounds invoked by the Public Ministry in the filing order."
That clause defines what happens once the period expires. You don't even know how long that period is.
Gunit said the case could not be reopened under 279/1...I said it could... And have been priven right... Gunit is wrong... The case can be reopened... And has been reopened
-
Snip
This is confirmed in a statement released Thursday by the PJ. "This work of reanalysis, which took place during the last two and a half years, allowed us to know new evidence that, by imposing the continuation of the investigation, fulfills the requirements ... for the reopening of the investigation," reads the note. The PJ goes on to point out that, in common with all cases of missing children, despite the formal closure of the inquiry, "he continued to be attentive to any information that would make it possible to know the whereabouts of Madeleine McCann, the circumstances in which their disappearance and the identity of their author (s) ".
Investigation centered on the rapture thesis
The PÚBLICO knows that the members of PJ do Porto have already visited the Algarve several times to gather elements and carry out informal investigations that will support the need to reopen the case. The reopening of the inquiry is the only way for the PJ to formally inquire these witnesses.
The reanalysis of the case returns to focus the investigation on the kidnapping thesis, the main line followed by Scotland Yard, who also opened an investigation into the disappearance of Maddie. The PJ do Porto team was convinced of this thesis in view of the careful observation of all the information in the process.
https://www.publico.pt/2013/10/24/sociedade/noticia/ministerio-publico-reabre-processo-do-desaparecimento-de-maddie-1610207
Madeleine's case was reopened "according to article 279º, no 1, of the Code of Criminal Procedure, following a proposal of the Judiciary Police and following the submission of new evidentiary elements which justify furthering the investigation."
Public Ministry reopens investigation into Madeleine McCann's disappearance, 24 October 2013
http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/Nigel/id466.htm
The PJ reinstated the investigation into Madeleine's abduction (rapture). Some may not wish to recognise that is the case but it categorically is.
-
Gunit said the case could not be Re opened under 279/1.....I said it could and have been proven right...the fact that the case has been re-opened is something of a clue that the conditions have been met
I don't know what you're reading, but I know it's not what I have written. At no point, ever, at all, did I say that the investigation couldn't be reopened under 279/1.
-
Gunit said the case could not be reopened under 279/1...I said it could... And have been priven right... Gunit is wrong... The case can be reopened... And has been reopened
Yes but only if the defined period has expired. Was that time period satisfied?
What clause was used to reopen the case? Was it 279/1? I don't think so.
-
Yes but only if the defined period has expired. Was that time period satisfied?
What clause was used to reopen the case? Was it 279/1? I don't think so.
Brietta posted an official PJ release quoting 279/1
-
Brietta posted an official PJ release quoting 279/1
Yes and it has been pointed out that that could well be a typo.
-
In it's rejection of the request for annulment of it's ruling the SC made it's position on the archiving dispatch clear again;
In fact, that dispatch was not proclaimed by virtue of the Public Ministry having gained the conviction that the appellants had not committed any crime (cf. art. 277 of the CPP).
The filing, in this case, was decided because it was not possible for Public Ministry to obtain sufficient evidence of the practice of crimes by the appellants (cf. the cited art. 277-2)
http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/STJ_21_03_2017_Rejected.htm
If 277/1 was the correct article as the McCann team argued, the investigation couldn't have been reopened;
The fact that the aforementioned “memorandum for the media”, published by the Attorney General office on the same day as the filing order, informed that the investigation could be reopened “if new evidence arose that could lead to serious, pertinent and consequential proceedings”, precisely points out that the order was issued pursuant to article 277-2 of the CPP.
In fact, if the investigation had been closed according to the terms of the first paragraph of the same article, it could not be reopened
http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/STJ_21_03_2017_Rejected.htm
your post
-
Yes and it has been pointed out that that could well be a typo.
that is ridiculous...perhaps the AG played a prank...it is atotally ridiculous suggestion
-
your post
From the link "the investigation can be reopened if new elements of evidence arise invalidating the grounds called upon by the Public Ministry in the filing dispatch (art. 279 of the CPP)."
-
that is ridiculous...perhaps the AG played a prank...it is atotally ridiculous suggestion
We don't know who did the typo so it is not ridiculous.
-
your post
Does it mention 279/1?
-
Yes but only if the defined period has expired. Was that time period satisfied?
What clause was used to reopen the case? Was it 279/1? I don't think so.
The case was archived quoting Article 277/1
The SC said 277/2 was the correct Article.
It was reopened using 279/1
-
The case was archived quoting Article 277/1
The SC said 277/2 was the correct Article.
It was reopened using 279/1
The 277 part details how cases can be archived but the 279 part is for the reopening.
Who says "It was reopened using 279/1" what report?
-
Does it mention 279/1?
In it's rejection of the request for annulment of it's ruling the SC made it's position on the archiving dispatch clear again;
In fact, that dispatch was not proclaimed by virtue of the Public Ministry having gained the conviction that the appellants had not committed any crime (cf. art. 277 of the CPP).
The filing, in this case, was decided because it was not possible for Public Ministry to obtain sufficient evidence of the practice of crimes by the appellants (cf. the cited art. 277-2)
http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/STJ_21_03_2017_Rejected.htm
If 277/1 was the correct article as the McCann team argued, the investigation couldn't have been reopened;
thats your post...yesit mentions 277/1
-
277/1 is not the same as 279/1
-
IMO... The PJ made sure they found some... In order, to satisfy SY
My theory is the same meat but different gravy.
-
The 277 part details how cases can be archived but the 279 part is for the reopening.
Who says "It was reopened using 279/1" what report?
Try looking at posts #1273 & # 1274 above.
-
In it's rejection of the request for annulment of it's ruling the SC made it's position on the archiving dispatch clear again;
In fact, that dispatch was not proclaimed by virtue of the Public Ministry having gained the conviction that the appellants had not committed any crime (cf. art. 277 of the CPP).
The filing, in this case, was decided because it was not possible for Public Ministry to obtain sufficient evidence of the practice of crimes by the appellants (cf. the cited art. 277-2)
http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/STJ_21_03_2017_Rejected.htm
If 277/1 was the correct article as the McCann team argued, the investigation couldn't have been reopened;
thats your post...yesit mentions 277/1
Of course it does. What are you on? You accused me of mentioning 279/1!!!!!
-
Of course it does. What are you on? You accused me of mentioning 279/1!!!!!
So even if it's archived under 277/1....it can still be reopened
-
So even if it's archived under 277/1....it can still be reopened
According to the SC judges it can't, which supports their argument that it wasn't archived under 277/1, but under 277/2.
I take it you've now realised your mistake about these articles and what I did or did not say?
-
According to the SC judges it can't, which supports their argument that it wasn't archived under 277/1, but under 277/2.
I take it you've now realised your mistake about these articles and what I did or did not say?
Yes.. What you said is, that if the case is archived under 277/1...it cannot be re-opened... It obviously can as this case has
-
Only " Once the period referred to in the previous article has expired" and I have not seen you prove that that clause was satisfied as yet.
Hang on, there are other bits of legal bla, in which a legal ruling can be contested with a specific number of days and which could prolong the inquiry phase while that other evidence is considered. IMO as no time to hunt back.
For example, let's say the legal ruling is to charge X. X finds that the prosecutor had ignored a plane ticket, hotel receipt that proves his alibi. That new info then has to be checked out and temporarily suspends the ruling.
-
Yes.. What you said is, that if the case is archived under 277/1...it cannot be re-opened... It obviously can as this case has
Which means that it wasn't archived under 277/1, it was archived, as the SC judges argued, under 277/2.
-
Hang on, there are other bits of legal bla, in which a legal ruling can be contested with a specific number of days and which could prolong the inquiry phase while that other evidence is considered. IMO as no time to hunt back.
For example, let's say the legal ruling is to charge X. X finds that the prosecutor had ignored a plane ticket, hotel receipt that proves his alibi. That new info then has to be checked out and temporarily suspends the ruling.
Twenty days were quoted at the time imo.
-
Which means that it wasn't archived under 277/1, it was archived, as the SC judges argued, under 277/2.
But that isn't what the archiving report says.... And as Carana has said... How can a civil court which has not heard the evidence overule a criminal investigation that has
-
Which means that it wasn't archived under 277/1, it was archived, as the SC judges argued, under 277/2.
Don't follow, G-Unit.
An archived case can be reopened whichever of the two clauses it fell under, if something suddenly credible, relevant and pertinent, suddenly falls on the desk and could be sufficient to reopen it whoever was responsible.
If her remains had been found, it would reopen the inquiry, but wouldn't necessarily involve the former arguidos. It might, of course, if something was found that provided founded suspicions. Just as it might not, depending on the circumstances and what exactly the new elements were.
Preferably not involving non-missing pink blankets...
-
But that isn't what the archiving report says.... And as Carana has said... How can a civil court which has not heard the evidence overule a criminal investigation that has
The SC might, if it was competent to review legal arguments and rulings in both civil and criminal cases (although I havent't checked whether that's the case or not).
However, for some reason, it does appear (to me) that one paragraph had been taken in isolation, and which was unlikely to have altered the course of the investigation in any case. If it HAD been vital, there was nothing to stop the authorities from slapping arguido status on the lot of them and dragging them all back to check on the neurological perceptions of the sound of flip-flops to two males engaged in banter to the tune of x decibels.
What I find more curious is the assumption that the prosecutors hadn't actually weighed up the totality of the considerations and didn't know what they were doing when they opted for that archival clause. A bit of an insult, in this case, IMO, and in a case in which the courts kept emphasising that the criminal case was beyond their remit.
Something's not computing for me at the moment.
-
Don't follow, G-Unit. Ko
An archived case can be reopened whichever of the two clauses it fell under, if something suddenly credible, relevant and pertinent, suddenly falls on the desk and could be sufficient to reopen it whoever was responsible.
If her remains had been found, it would reopen the inquiry, but wouldn't necessarily involve the former arguidos. It might, of course, if something was found that provided founded suspicions. Just as it might not, depending on the circumstances and what exactly the new elements were.
Preferably not involving non-missing pink blankets...
So filing under 277/1 does not mean the case cannot be re-opened... We've got there in the end
-
The SC might, if it was competent to review legal arguments and rulings in both civil and criminal cases (although I havent't checked whether that's the case or not).
However, for some reason, it does appear (to me) that one paragraph had been taken in isolation, and which was unlikely to have altered the course of the investigation in any case. If it HAD been vital, there was nothing to stop the authorities from slapping arguido status on the lot of them and dragging them all back to check on the neurological perceptions of the sound of flip-flops to two males engaged in banter to the tune of x decibels.
What I find more curious is the assumption that the prosecutors hadn't actually weighed up the totality of the considerations and didn't know what they were doing when they opted for that archival clause. A bit of an insult, in this case, IMO, and in a case in which the courts kept emphasising that the criminal case was beyond their remit.
Something's not computing for me at the moment.
Added to the fact that Gerry was prevented from contesting the cadaver evidence
-
Added to the fact that Gerry was prevented from contesting the cadaver evidence
I can see that disputing the facts of the case would belong to a criminal trial, and that the SC was limiting itself to the legal side, but I still don't see how, on the basis of the entire contents of the legal summary, taken as a whole, they can take it upon themselves to change what now appears to be a key point relating to a criminal ruling due to an interpretation of one phrase, while examing the merits of a civil case.
-
I can see that disputing the facts of the case would belong to a criminal trial, and that the SC was limiting itself to the legal side, but I still don't see how, on the basis of the entire contents of the legal summary, taken as a whole, they can take it upon themselves to change what now appears to be a key point relating to a criminal ruling due to an interpretation of one phrase, while examing the merits of a civil case.
The point us that they are making a decision on a criminal ruling when the McCann's have never had the opportunity ti contest the evidence against them in which the ruling was made
-
It might be helpful were the good Lady Judge's ruling re-read..... *%87
It can be found on this very site.
-
Allegedly!
"Judge – To decide that there are already forensic experts. We are not here to prove if the contents of the book are truthful or not. Here we are only trying to establish if the freedom of expression of the defendants has affected the rights of the claimants. This court cannot be a substitute of the criminal investigation. [Turns to the interpreter] Tell the gentleman that he is excused".
-
Allegedly!
"Judge – To decide that there are already forensic experts. We are not here to prove if the contents of the book are truthful or not. Here we are only trying to establish if the freedom of expression of the defendants has affected the rights of the claimants. This court cannot be a substitute of the criminal investigation. [Turns to the interpreter] Tell the gentleman that he is excused".
What a put down line @)(++(*
-
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?board=68.0
-
The point us that they are making a decision on a criminal ruling when the McCann's have never had the opportunity ti contest the evidence against them in which the ruling was made
Filing it under "insufficient evidence" makes it sound (IMO) as if there IS credible evidence both as to whatever the crime actually was and against the arguidos, just not quite enough to secure a conviction.
What evidence?
Although Rebelo (and others) did quite a good job (IMO) of checking things out and presenting a coherent report, and which the prosecutor appears to have gone over carefully, what had initially appeared to be "evidence" of the kind that would bowl a court over, fizzled out like hot Coke.
I had thought upon a first read that Isabel Duarte might have gone out on a shaky limb there, but for the moment, I think she has a valid point.
And that change appears to be a major point in Amaral ultimately winning the case, and his right to carry on accusing them of whatever theories pop into his head wile taking a shower.
-
What a put down line @)(++(*
Not really.
Much nicer than many names he has been called in sceptic forum land
Very polite IMO
-
Filing it under "insufficient evidence" makes it sound (IMO) as if there IS credible evidence both as to whatever the crime actually was and against the arguidos, just not quite enough to secure a conviction.
What evidence?
Although Rebelo (and others) did quite a good job (IMO) of checking things out and presenting a coherent report, and which the prosecutor appears to have gone over carefully, what had initially appeared to be "evidence" of the kind that would bowl a court over, fizzled out like hot Coke.
I had thought upon a first read that Isabel Duarte might have gone out on a shaky limb there, but for the moment, I think she has a valid point.
And that change appears to be a major point in Amaral ultimately winning the case, and his right to carry on accusing them of whatever theories pop into his head wile taking a shower.
It seems a deliberate attempt to imply some degree of guilt when the Archiving report said clearly there, was, NO evidence of any crime
-
Allegedly!
"Judge – To decide that there are already forensic experts. We are not here to prove if the contents of the book are truthful or not. Here we are only trying to establish if the freedom of expression of the defendants has affected the rights of the claimants. This court cannot be a substitute of the criminal investigation. [Turns to the interpreter] Tell the gentleman that he is excused".
This seems so alien to those who've followed English media libel trials, but the system is totally different.
-
No you have not. "Article 279 - Reopening of the investigation
1. Once the period referred to in the previous article has expired, the investigation may be reopened only if new evidence appears to invalidate the grounds invoked by the Public Ministry in the filing order."
That clause defines what happens once the period expires. You don't even know how long that period is.
I'll post the relevant articles from the 2007 CCP (the 2000 one was prior to the September arguido interviews, but might have been the one in force at the time of any trial within a relatively short time) and you can all find your favourite translator.
Artigo 277.o
Arquivamento do inquérito
1 — O Ministério Público procede, por despacho, ao arquivamento do inquérito, logo que tiver recolhido prova bastante de se não ter verificado crime, de o arguido não o ter praticado a qualquer título ou de ser legalmente inadmissível o procedimento.
2 — O inquérito é igualmente arquivado se não tiver sido possível ao Ministério Público obter indícios suficientes da verificação de crime ou de quem foram os agentes.
68
3 — O despacho de arquivamento é comunicado ao arguido, ao assistente, ao denunciante com faculdade de se constituir assistente e a quem tenha manifestado o propósito de deduzir pedido de indemnização civil nos termos do artigo 75.o, bem como ao respectivo defensor ou advogado.
4 — As comunicações a que se refere o número anterior efectuam-se:
a) Por notificação mediante contacto pessoal ou via postal registada ao assistente e ao arguido, excepto se estes tiverem indicado um local determinado para efeitos de notificação por via postal simples, nos termos dos n.os 5 e 6 do artigo 145.o, do n.o 2 e da alínea c) do n.o 3 do artigo 196.o, e não tenham entretanto indicado uma outra, através de requerimento entregue ou remetido por via postal registada à secretaria onde os autos se encontrarem a correr nesse momento;
b) Por editais, se o arguido não tiver defensor nomeado ou advogado constituído e não for possível a sua notificação mediante contacto pessoal, via postal registada ou simples, nos termos previstos na alínea anterior;
c) Por notificação mediante via postal simples ao denunciante com a faculdade de se constituir assistente e a quem tenha manifestado o propósito de deduzir pedido de indemnização civil;
d) Por notificação mediante via postal simples sempre que o inquérito não correr contra pessoa determinada.
5 — Nos casos previstos no n.o 1, sempre que se verificar que existiu por parte de quem denunciou ou exerceu um alegado direito de queixa, uma utilização abusiva do processo, o tribunal condena -o no pagamento de uma soma entre 6 UC e 20 UC, sem prejuízo do apuramento de responsabilidade penal.
Artigo 278.o
Intervencão hierárquica
1 — No prazo de 20 dias a contar da data em que a abertura de instrução já não puder ser requerida, o imediato superior hierárquico do magistrado do Ministério Público pode, por sua iniciativa ou a requerimento do assistente ou do denunciante com a faculdade de se constituir assistente, determinar que seja formulada acusação ou que as investigações prossigam, indicando, neste caso, as diligências a efectuar e o prazo para o seu cumprimento.
2 — O assistente e o denunciante com a faculdade de se constituir assistente podem, se optarem por não requerer a abertura da instrução, suscitar a intervenção hierárquica, ao abrigo do número anterior, no prazo previsto para aquele requerimento.
Artigo 279.o
Reabertura do inquérito
1 — Esgotado o prazo a que se refere o artigo anterior, o inquérito só pode ser reaberto se surgirem novos elementos de prova que invalidem os fundamentos invocados pelo Ministério Público no despacho de arquivamento.
2 — Do despacho do Ministério Público que deferir ou recusar a reabertura do inquérito há reclamação para o superior hierárquico imediato.
-
Just a little caveat, we're looking at the CCPs in force in 2007. The case was eventually reopened in 2013, by which time the code may well have changed. The civil one changes faster than you can blink.
ETA: Just checked the August 2014 versionn - same wording for 277-279.
-
The point us that they are making a decision on a criminal ruling when the McCann's have never had the opportunity ti contest the evidence against them in which the ruling was made
They have never challenged it IMO.
-
They have never challenged it IMO.
How could they? They weren't allowed to in the civil trial.
Whether they agreed with all the details in the legal summary or not, the bottom line was that there was no evidence that any of the arguidos had committed an as-yet undetermined crime against this little girl.
That left them free to pore over the files and try to find ways to get the case reviewed and hopefully reopened - which has now happened.
-
This seems so alien to those who've followed English media libel trials, but the system is totally different.
Yeah but our libel laws are considered "third world" in large parts of the west.
The McCann v Amaral case ceased to be a libel trial early doors.
Bearing in mind it was a 1.2MM writ, most of it was thrown out on the first pass. The final judgement in the court of first instance came down to whether Sr Amaral, as a former employee of the state, remained bound by the same rules in retirement as he was when in employment. If so and he had profited by bucking those rules the judge had to decide how the balance be redressed and rule on it, to whit pay the dosh plus interest to the plaintiff. Which is what she ordered that judgment was subsequently appealed successfully by Sr Amaral.
-
Yeah but our libel laws are considered "third world" in large parts of the west.
The McCann v Amaral case ceased to be a libel trial early doors.
Bearing in mind it was a 1.2MM writ, most of it was thrown out on the first pass. The final judgement in the court of first instance came down to whether Sr Amaral, as a former employee of the state, remained bound by the same rules in retirement as he was when in employment. If so and he had profited by bucking those rules the judge had to decide how the balance be redressed and rule on it, to whit pay the dosh plus interest to the plaintiff. Which is what she ordered that judgment was subsequently appealed successfully by Sr Amaral.
Amarals book would be considered libel in most of the US under libel per se... ..looking at other cases on the ECHR website I think it should have been deemed libellous in Portugal.... Perhaps it will be
-
Hang on, there are other bits of legal bla, in which a legal ruling can be contested with a specific number of days and which could prolong the inquiry phase while that other evidence is considered. IMO as no time to hunt back.
For example, let's say the legal ruling is to charge X. X finds that the prosecutor had ignored a plane ticket, hotel receipt that proves his alibi. That new info then has to be checked out and temporarily suspends the ruling.
Whatever it means, but I'd say if there is a condition to be met, that condition has to be met before that clause will apply.
-
Amarals book would be considered libel in most of the US under libel per se... ..looking at other cases on the ECHR website I think it should have been deemed libellous in Portugal.... Perhaps it will be
So you keep saying.
-
Whatever it means, but I'd say if there is a condition to be met, that condition has to be met before that clause will apply.
the most important point is taht the case can be reopened when archived under 277/1 wqhich is contrary to what gunit was claiming.......it therefore also nullifies gunits calim taht closure had to be changed to 277/2 for taht raeson.
So the question then is...why did the SC make the change
-
I can see that disputing the facts of the case would belong to a criminal trial, and that the SC was limiting itself to the legal side, but I still don't see how, on the basis of the entire contents of the legal summary, taken as a whole, they can take it upon themselves to change what now appears to be a key point relating to a criminal ruling due to an interpretation of one phrase, while examing the merits of a civil case.
The Supreme Court has the power to overrule the Attorney General himself, so it certainly has the power to correct a legal mistake by a public prosecutor.
In England for example;
Prince Charles letters: attorney general acted unlawfully, say senior judges
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/mar/12/attorney-general-unlawful-prince-charles-letters
The Attorney General appealed to the Supreme court and lost again.
https://www.supremecourt.uk/news/supreme-court-order-r-on-the-application-of-evans-v-attorney-general.html
-
Yeah but our libel laws are considered "third world" in large parts of the west.
The McCann v Amaral case ceased to be a libel trial early doors.
Bearing in mind it was a 1.2MM writ, most of it was thrown out on the first pass. The final judgement in the court of first instance came down to whether Sr Amaral, as a former employee of the state, remained bound by the same rules in retirement as he was when in employment. If so and he had profited by bucking those rules the judge had to decide how the balance be redressed and rule on it, to whit pay the dosh plus interest to the plaintiff. Which is what she ordered that judgment was subsequently appealed successfully by Sr Amaral.
Did you miss the word but in your last sentence?
"Which is what she ordered [BUT] that judgement was subsequently appealed successfully by Sr Amaral."
-
the most important point is taht the case can be reopened when archived under 277/1 wqhich is contrary to what gunit was claiming.......it therefore also nullifies gunits calim taht closure had to be changed to 277/2 for taht raeson.
So the question then is...why did the SC make the change
Are you left handed?
-
The Supreme Court has the power to overrule the Attorney General himself, so it certainly has the power to correct a legal mistake by a public prosecutor.
In England for example;
Prince Charles letters: attorney general acted unlawfully, say senior judges
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/mar/12/attorney-general-unlawful-prince-charles-letters
The Attorney General appealed to the Supreme court and lost again.
https://www.supremecourt.uk/news/supreme-court-order-r-on-the-application-of-evans-v-attorney-general.html
on what grounds was it a mistake
-
on what grounds was it a mistake
Make it clear which case you are talking about please.
-
But that isn't what the archiving report says.... And as Carana has said... How can a civil court which has not heard the evidence overule a criminal investigation that has
The Supreme Court isn't a civil court. It hears appeals relating to civil and criminal cases. The judges looked at the archiving report only because the McCann's lawyers used it as part of their appeal.
-
The Supreme Court isn't a civil court. It hears appeals relating to civil and criminal cases. The judges looked at the archiving report only because the McCann's lawyers used it as part of their appeal.
and on what grounds did the SC feel a mistake had been made in the archiving report thta needed rectifying
-
the most important point is taht the case can be reopened when archived under 277/1 wqhich is contrary to what gunit was claiming.......it therefore also nullifies gunits calim taht closure had to be changed to 277/2 for taht raeson.
So the question then is...why did the SC make the change
Do try to understand. When I post something with a link to a cite underneath it I'm not posting my own words or opinions. I was quoting the words of the Supreme court judges, not my own.
-
Do try to understand. When I post something with a link to a cite underneath it I'm not posting my own words or opinions. I was quoting the words of the Supreme court judges, not my own.
were you quoting the SC judges....that line does not seem to be in the judgement posted on this forum
-
and on what grounds did the SC feel a mistake had been made in the archiving report thta needed rectifying
Groundhog day? 277/1 should have said 277/2!!!!!! (&^& (&^&
-
were you quoting the SC judges....that line does not seem to be in the judgement posted on this forum
Follow the link!
-
Groundhog day? 277/1 should have said 277/2!!!!!! (&^& (&^&
as Carana has confirmed....the case can be reopened if archived under 277/1...this case was reopened even though filed under 277/1
-
Follow the link!
ive fllowed the link...the line re the case not able to be reopened does not appear on the judgement on this foum
-
Follow the link!
you seem to be relying on this....
This is why it was judged in the ruling that it would not seem acceptable to consider that the order should be treated as a demonstration of acquittal.
In fact, it does not appear anywhere in the order, that the collected evidence was sufficient to confirm that no crime was committed or that the then arguidos (here appellants) did not commit it in any sort of way (cf. quoted article 277-1).
The fact that the aforementioned “memorandum for the media”, published by the Attorney General office on the same day as the filing order, informed that the investigation could be reopened “if new evidence arose that could lead to serious, pertinent and consequential proceedings”, precisely points out that the order was issued pursuant to article 277-2 of the CPP.
In fact, if the investigation had been closed according to the terms of the first paragraph of the same article, it could not be reopened (cf. CPP, reviewed, 2016, 2nd ed., by Henriques Gaspar, Santos Cabral, Maia Costa, Oliveira Mendes, Pereira Madeira and Henriques da Graça, pp.929, 932-3.
from what I can see these are not the words of the judges but comments on the judgement by persons unknown
-
ive fllowed the link...the line re the case not able to be reopened does not appear on the judgement on this foum
I never said it did.
-
I never said it did.
Thats because the judges never said it
-
Gunit said the case could not be Re opened under 279/1.....I said it could and have been proven right...the fact that the case has been re-opened is something of a clue that the conditions have been met
This is where you went wrong, G-unit hadn’t mentioned 279/1 that was Brietta. You should apologise.
-
Gunit said the case could not be Re opened under 279/1.....I said it could and have been proven right...the fact that the case has been re-opened is something of a clue that the conditions have been met
No she said it could 9 posts earlier.
-
This is where you went wrong, G-unit never mentioned 279/1 that was Brietta. You should apologise.
typo...Ive be refering to 277/1 all day...
-
No she said it could 9 posts earlier.
she claimed the judges said it couldnt...we have the judgement here and no mention
-
Don't follow, G-Unit.
An archived case can be reopened whichever of the two clauses it fell under, if something suddenly credible, relevant and pertinent, suddenly falls on the desk and could be sufficient to reopen it whoever was responsible.
If her remains had been found, it would reopen the inquiry, but wouldn't necessarily involve the former arguidos. It might, of course, if something was found that provided founded suspicions. Just as it might not, depending on the circumstances and what exactly the new elements were.
Preferably not involving non-missing pink blankets...
I agree with the SC judges. The investigation did not gather sufficient evidence that the arguidos did not practice a crime. If they had, the prosecutors wouldn't have included this in their archiving dispatch;
We believe that the main damage was caused to the McCann arguidos, who lost the possibility to prove what they have protested since they were constituted arguidos: their innocence towards the fateful event; the investigation was also disturbed, because said facts remain unclarified.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/LEGAL_SUMMARY.htm
Article 277 - Archiving of the investigation
1 - The Public Ministry shall, by dispatch, close the investigation, as soon as it has gathered sufficient evidence that the crime was not confirmed, that the arguido did not practice it in any way or that the procedure is legally inadmissible
-
typo...Ive be refering to 277/1 all day...
Brietta posted a cut and paste talking about 279/1 and you highlighted the 279. Previous discussions had been around 277/1 or /2. You claimed it confirmed your posts on the subject (277/1 or /2). You can see why it looks confused.
-
Brietta posted a cut and paste talking about 279/1 and you highlighted the 279. Previous discussions had been around 277/1 or /2. You claimed it confirmed your posts on the subject (277/1 or /2). You can see why it looks confused.
The bottom line is
Filed under 277/1...can still reopen
Judges made no comment on the inability to reopen
No real need to change the archiving decision
-
you seem to be relying on this....
This is why it was judged in the ruling that it would not seem acceptable to consider that the order should be treated as a demonstration of acquittal.
In fact, it does not appear anywhere in the order, that the collected evidence was sufficient to confirm that no crime was committed or that the then arguidos (here appellants) did not commit it in any sort of way (cf. quoted article 277-1).
The fact that the aforementioned “memorandum for the media”, published by the Attorney General office on the same day as the filing order, informed that the investigation could be reopened “if new evidence arose that could lead to serious, pertinent and consequential proceedings”, precisely points out that the order was issued pursuant to article 277-2 of the CPP.
In fact, if the investigation had been closed according to the terms of the first paragraph of the same article, it could not be reopened (cf. CPP, reviewed, 2016, 2nd ed., by Henriques Gaspar, Santos Cabral, Maia Costa, Oliveira Mendes, Pereira Madeira and Henriques da Graça, pp.929, 932-3.
from what I can see these are not the words of the judges but comments on the judgement by persons unknown
They may be persons unknown to you, but they are judges and Antonio Henriques Gasper was the President of the Supreme Court.
-
They may be persons unknown to you, but they are judges and Antonio Henriques Gasper was the President of the Supreme Court.
But we don't have quotes from them... Just references to them.... And the advice is wrong... The case can be opened under 277/1
-
But we don't have quotes from them... Just references to them.... And the advice is wrong... The case can be opened under 277/1
(http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/A/STJ_21_03_2017_Rejected_Page_10.jpg)
-
(http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/A/STJ_21_03_2017_Rejected_Page_10.jpg)
Where does it say it cant
-
Did you miss the word but in your last sentence?
"Which is what she ordered [BUT] that judgement was subsequently appealed successfully by Sr Amaral."
No! I missed a comma after the word ordered.
-
But we don't have quotes from them... Just references to them.... And the advice is wrong... The case can be opened under 277/1
It's a cite from their book, written to clarify the CCP.
-
It's a cite from their book, written to clarify the CCP.
That seems very odd... Why would the SC judges need to cite a book Re the law
Are they saying that if a case is archived.. 277/1....it can't be re-opened.... So if someone confesses they can't be charged
-
Whatever it means, but I'd say if there is a condition to be met, that condition has to be met before that clause will apply.
I found the one I was thinking of - it's Article 178. If I've understood it correctly, It's a kind of interim period (20 days) before the ruling becomes final in which the magistrate's superior, either at his/her own initiative or at that of an assistente (or someone who could apply for that status) can object and determine that charges should be laid or order that further investigations be carried out - but they'd have to be specific with an indication of how long it would take.
Obviously, neither the McCanns nor Murat were going to apply to the superior and insist on being charged lol, and
I never quite worked out whether the McCanns got their assistente status in the end, but I vaguely remember from her book that they were thinking about whether to ask for any further investigations into leads that didn't seem to have been followed up (so I think they did at the end of the process), but as any requests would have had to be specific, and there was such a lot to wade through, they decided against it.
After that "speak now or forever hold your peace" time, the case was considered archived, and could then only be reopened via the provisions in 279.
-
With thanks to Anne Guedes for the translation.
The appellants alluded to the “ostensible contradiction of grounds” because the ruling held that the closure of the criminal proceedings was determined since it had not been possible for the Public Ministry to obtain sufficient evidence of the commission of crimes by the appellants, whereas the filing order states that it occurred "because there were no indications that the appellants had committed any crime, in accordance with the provisions of article 277-1 of the CPP". First of all, let us say that the nullity pleaded consists in contradiction between the grounds and the decision and not between the grounds. In any case, it will always be said that the alleged contradiction does not exist because, in our view, although the filing order refers to the provisions of article 277-1 (note that the point 15 of the proved factual matter makes no reference to that article), what is pertinent is the content of the order and not a quoted legal provision.
Now what is obviously underscored in that order is that it was not issued because the Public Ministry had been convinced that the appellants...
Page 10
… did not commit any crime but because it had not been possible for the Public Ministry to obtain sufficient evidence of the commission of crimes by the appellants.
It means that the archiving would have been determined under article 277-2 of the CPP, and not under the first paragraph of that article, although the latter is quoted in the order.
This is why it was judged in the ruling that it would not seem acceptable to consider that the order should be treated as a demonstration of acquittal.
In fact, it does not appear anywhere in the order, that the collected evidence was sufficient to confirm that no crime was committed or that the then arguidos (here appellants) did not commit it in any sort of way (cf. quoted article 277-1).
The fact that the aforementioned “memorandum for the media”, published by the Attorney General office on the same day as the filing order, informed that the investigation could be reopened “if new evidence arose that could lead to serious, pertinent and consequential proceedings”, precisely points out that the order was issued pursuant to article 277-2 of the CPP.
In fact, if the investigation had been closed according to the terms of the first paragraph of the same article, it could not be reopened (cf. CPP, reviewed, 2016, 2nd ed., by Henriques Gaspar, Santos Cabral, Maia Costa, Oliveira Mendes, Pereira Madeira and Henriques da Graça, pp.929, 932-3.
Anyhow, the intention was only to counter the appellants' assertion that, with the aforementioned order, it had been demonstrated that they were innocent.
Thus, in one form or another, whatever the grounds for the closure of the investigation and the preclusive effects of the respective decision (that has not the value of res judicata, which refers exclusively to decisions of a judicial nature, but is a “decided case” or “close to res judicata” - cf. op. cit. pp. 929 and 932), we would always consider that the public criticism and the public scrutiny of the functioning of justice were not impeded, as stated in the ruling in question.
That is to say, we would always conclude that the presumption of innocence principle would not be pertinent for the decision on the issue that we had to resolve.
http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/STJ_21_03_2017_Rejected.htm
Taking this bit: In fact, if the investigation had been closed according to the terms of the first paragraph of the same article, it could not be reopened (cf. CPP, reviewed, 2016, 2nd ed., by Henriques Gaspar, Santos Cabral, Maia Costa, Oliveira Mendes, Pereira Madeira and Henriques da Graça, pp.929, 932-3.
Doesn't make sense to me at the moment. They're quoting a work that appears to have been published in 2016 concerning the CPP, about a case that was reopened in 2013.
There's no explanation as to why it couldn't be opened under 277/1
i just looked at the 2014 CCP earlier and I can't see any difference in the wording compared to the 2007 one.
If it had been reopened under 277/2, why did Pedro do Carmo make a rare public statement to clarify that the parents weren't suspects?
I can't find this "memorandum for the media". Anyone got a link?
-
Nope. I still don't get it. :(
From a PT citizens' rights site:
What does the presumption of innocence mean concerning an arguido? What rights does this presumption give?
The presumption of innocence means that everyone is considered innocent until he has been convicted by a final judgment - that is, of which he can no longer appeal - in a criminal court.
(...)
O que significa a presunção de inocência do arguido? Que direitos dá essa presunção?
Perguntas
A presunção de inocência significa que toda a pessoa é considerada inocente até ter sido condenada por sentença transitada em julgado — isto é, da qual já não se pode recorrer — num tribunal criminal.
https://www.direitosedeveres.pt/q/acesso-ao-direito-e-aos-tribunais/garantias-de-defesa-no-processo-criminal/o-que-significa-a-presuncao-de-inocencia-do-arguido-que-direitos-da-essa-presuncao
From the SC rejection:
Anyhow, the intention was only to counter the appellants' assertion that, with the aforementioned order, it had been demonstrated that they were innocent.
Thus, in one form or another, whatever the grounds for the closure of the investigation and the preclusive effects of the respective decision (that has not the value of res judicata, which refers exclusively to decisions of a judicial nature, but is a “decided case” or “close to res judicata” - cf. op. cit. pp. 929 and 932), we would always consider that the public criticism and the public scrutiny of the functioning of justice were not impeded, as stated in the ruling in question.
That is to say, we would always conclude that the presumption of innocence principle would not be pertinent for the decision on the issue that we had to resolve.
Did Isabel Duarte actually say "demonstrated that they were innocent"? If so, perhaps not the best phrasing.
According to the SC's logic, as they weren't tried and found innocent, they are therefore not entitled to the presumption of innocence - i.e., everyone is presumed guilty until they have been proved innocent by the court of last instance.
-
Can someone explain to me how that reconstruction could have demonstrated / proven their innocence in practical terms? And innocence concerning what crime?
Here are the points that it was supposed to cover:
E - About the Interest of the Reconstitution
Taking into account that there were certain points in the arguidos' and witnesses' statements that revealed, apparently at least, contradiction or that lacked physical confirmation, it was decided to carry out the "reconstitution of the fact", a diligence that is consecrated in article 150 of the Penal Process Code in the sense of duly clarifying, on the very location of the facts , the following very important details, among others:
1 - The physical, real and effective proximity between Jane Tanner, Gerald McCann and Jeremy Wilkins, at the moment when the first person walked by them, and which coincided with the sighting of the supposed suspect, carrying a child. It results, in our perspective, strange that neither Gerald McCann nor Jeremy Wilkins saw her, or the alleged abductor, despite the exiguity of the space and the peacefulness of the area;
2 - The situation concerning the window to the bedroom where Madeleine slept, together with the twins, which was open, according to Kate. It seemed then necessary to clarify if there was a draught, since movement of the curtains and pressure under the bedroom door are mentioned, which, eventually, could be verified through the reconstitution;
3 - The establishment of a timeline and of a line of effective checking on the minors that were left alone in the apartments, given that, if it is believed that such checking was as tight as the witnesses and the arguidos describe it, it would be, at least, very difficult to reunite conditions for the introduction of an abductor in the residence and the posterior exit of said abductor, with the child, namely through a window with scarce space. It is added that the supposed abductor could only pass, through that window, holding the minor in a different position (vertical) from the one that witness JANE TANNER saw (horizontal);
4 - What happened during the time lapse between approximately 6.45/7 p.m. - the time at which MADELEINE was seen for the last time, in her apartment, by a different person (David Payne) from her parents or siblings - and the time at which the disappearance is reported by Kate Healy - at around 10 p.m.;
5 - The obvious and well-known advantages of immediate appreciation of evidence, or in other words, the fulfilment of the principle of contiguity of evidence in order to form a conviction, as firm as possible, about what was seen by Jane Tanner and the other interposers, and, eventually, to dismiss once and for all any doubts that may subsist concerning the innocence of the missing [child's] parents.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/LEGAL_SUMMARY.htm
-
Starting with the first one:
1 - The physical, real and effective proximity between Jane Tanner, Gerald McCann and Jeremy Wilkins, at the moment when the first person walked by them, and which coincided with the sighting of the supposed suspect, carrying a child. It results, in our perspective, strange that neither Gerald McCann nor Jeremy Wilkins saw her, or the alleged abductor, despite the exiguity of the space and the peacefulness of the area;
Ok. Neither Gerry nor Jez saw Jane and they don't agree on their recollections of exactly where the three of them were standing. The road had two pavements and the road appears to be 3 car-widths wide.
How, concretely, would having Jane flip-flop by again with Gerry and Jez chatting away with a baby in a buggy demonstrate the parents' innocence? Or even their guilt, for that matter?
Edited for typo.
-
2 - The situation concerning the window to the bedroom where Madeleine slept, together with the twins, which was open, according to Kate. It seemed then necessary to clarify if there was a draught, since movement of the curtains and pressure under the bedroom door are mentioned, which, eventually*, could be verified through the reconstitution;
Ok. The window issue. Kate goes through the motions of walking in and her whoosh scene. Assuming that the reconstruction took place on an evening with exactly the same wind conditions (which could only be an approximation as it wasn't as if there were 10000 monitors surrounding the flat to make precise measurements anyway).
If the curtains whoosh and the door slams. Does that mean she's innocent?
If the curtains don't whosh and the door doesn't slam on recon night, does that mean she's guilty of whatever happened to her daughter?
* Eventually - to check the word used in PT. I suspect it doesn't actually mean eventually as used in English, but possibly / potentially.
-
Starting with the first one:
1 - The physical, real and effective proximity between Jane Tanner, Gerald McCann and Jeremy Wilkins, at the moment when the first person walked by them, and which coincided with the sighting of the supposed suspect, carrying a child. It results, in our perspective, strange that neither Gerald McCann nor Jeremy Wilkins saw her, or the alleged abductor, despite the exiguity of the space and the peacefulness of the area;
Ok. Neither Gerry nor Jez saw Jane and they don't agree on their recollections of exactly where the three of them were standing. The road had two pavements and the road appears to be 3 car-widths wide.
How, concretly, would having Jane flip-flop by again with Gerry and Jez chatting away with a baby in a buggy demonstrate the parents' innocence? Or even their guilt, for that matter?
IMO the reconstitution described was not an exercise to demonstrate Kate & Gerry's innocence. IMO it was an exercise to disprove the testimony of Jane, her sighting & the abduction of Madeleine through the open window.
-
3 - The establishment of a timeline and of a line of effective checking on the minors that were left alone in the apartments, given that, if it is believed that such checking was as tight as the witnesses and the arguidos describe it, it would be, at least, very difficult to reunite conditions for the introduction of an abductor in the residence and the posterior exit of said abductor, with the child, namely through a window with scarce space. It is added that the supposed abductor could only pass, through that window, holding the minor in a different position (vertical) from the one that witness JANE TANNER saw (horizontal);
So, they have a stop-watch and they all get up and walk around, spend x seconds / minutes in their flats and go back to sit again in the Tapas.
They do go on about an abductor climbing through a window. No one said they'd seen someone climb in, it was just their initial assumption on seeing it open.
What were they thinking of doing? Having an officer attempting to climb in and checking how long it would have taken, if ever it was even possible? If he did manage to squash through in time, does that prove the parents are innocent? Were they trying to see if it would have been impossible to walk towards the block's main entrance and not notice? Were they going to replant a tree of the same size and change the lighting?
Were they also going to check if someone could have gone in via either of the doors, or if officer x couldn't get in or not before the next person, the parents were guilty?
-
IMO the reconstitution described was not an exercise to demonstrate Kate & Gerry's innocence. IMO it was an exercise to disprove the testimony of Jane, her sighting & the abduction of Madeleine through the open window.
Didn't see your post, Misty. Yes, but re the last point, I think they were trying to disprove that an abductor could have got through the window without anyone noticing. I've no idea why they were fixated on the fact that at some point that's what the parents had assumed. It's not as if they'd stated that they'd actually seen it happen.
-
4 - What happened during the time lapse between approximately 6.45/7 p.m. - the time at which MADELEINE was seen for the last time, in her apartment, by a different person (David Payne) from her parents or siblings - and the time at which the disappearance is reported by Kate Healy - at around 10 p.m.;
Ok, so David leaves... Kate carries on with the kids, reading stories or giving them their milk. Gerry comes back from tennis. The kids go to bed. They sit down with their glass of wine... They chat for a bit, no noise from the kids, all fine, then go out to the restaurant, via the patio,
What would going through that again prove? Scratching my head over that one.
-
Didn't see your post, Misty. Yes, but re the last point, I think they were trying to disprove that an abductor could have got through the window without anyone noticing. I've no idea why they were fixated on the fact that at some point that's what the parents had assumed. It's not as if they'd stated that they'd actually seen it happen.
I agree. There is absolutely no way a reconstruction involving Kate & Gerry could have shown that someone did enter by the window, especially as forensics showed nothing. If the McCanns couldn't prove that entry was gained in that manner, where did it leave their testimonies/innocence once Jane had been discredited?
-
Starting with the first one:
1 - The physical, real and effective proximity between Jane Tanner, Gerald McCann and Jeremy Wilkins, at the moment when the first person walked by them, and which coincided with the sighting of the supposed suspect, carrying a child. It results, in our perspective, strange that neither Gerald McCann nor Jeremy Wilkins saw her, or the alleged abductor, despite the exiguity of the space and the peacefulness of the area;
Ok. Neither Gerry nor Jez saw Jane and they don't agree on their recollections of exactly where the three of them were standing. The road had two pavements and the road appears to be 3 car-widths wide.
How, concretly, would having Jane flip-flop by again with Gerry and Jez chatting away with a baby in a buggy demonstrate the parents' innocence? Or even their guilt, for that matter?
I'm not sure that just the presence and location of even one parked vehicle could have had a bearing on what was seen, or not seen as the case may be, by the two men whatever side of the road they stood on.
Jane had a clear view of the top of the road; but if Jes was content to be standing on the road with his son in a buggy while having a conversation, it suggests to me he may well have been standing behind a parked car.
It was of no importance to them at the time and would therefore not register but the presence of a vehicle or more than one, could materially alter the whole scenario.
I think the whole notion of a reconstruction involving only the individuals named is a nonsense which would have clarified nothing and since there was the possibility in my opinion, of self incrimination by participating no doubt they would also have to have been constituted arguidos. Including Jes Wilkins.
-
5 - The obvious and well-known advantages of immediate appreciation of evidence, or in other words, the fulfilment of the principle of contiguity of evidence in order to form a conviction, as firm as possible, about what was seen by Jane Tanner and the other interposers, and, eventually, to dismiss once and for all any doubts that may subsist concerning the innocence of the missing [child's] parents.
OK the boys are chatting away and Jane is roughly where she remembered being (somewhere between 5 and 10 metres, but she thinks probably closer to 5). Lighting is changed back to what it was. Male actor & child walk by. She's asked to describe them. She does so. Her description is mostly right or partially right, or perhaps totally wrong.
However that turned out, how would it prove the parents' innocence?
-
I agree. There is absolutely no way a reconstruction involving Kate & Gerry could have shown that someone did enter by the window, especially as forensics showed nothing. If the McCanns couldn't prove that entry was gained in that manner, where did it leave their testimonies/innocence once Jane had been discredited?
Agreed. It was an impossibility for the McCanns to 'prove' anything for the reason they simply did not know what had happened or the reason for the window being open and the shutter raised short of the fact that was not how it had been left.
It would have been impossible for them to determine whether the shutter had been raised from the inside or the outside, they just did not know.
-
I agree. There is absolutely no way a reconstruction involving Kate & Gerry could have shown that someone did enter by the window, especially as forensics showed nothing. If the McCanns couldn't prove that entry was gained in that manner, where did it leave their testimonies/innocence once Jane had been discredited?
Why should they have to prove that someone did get in that way? How about their initial assumption was simply wrong?
-
5 - The obvious and well-known advantages of immediate appreciation of evidence, or in other words, the fulfilment of the principle of contiguity of evidence in order to form a conviction, as firm as possible, about what was seen by Jane Tanner and the other interposers, and, eventually, to dismiss once and for all any doubts that may subsist concerning the innocence of the missing [child's] parents.
OK the boys are chatting away and Jane is roughly where she remembered being (somewhere between 5 and 20 metres, but she thinks probably closer to 5). Lighting is changed back to what it was. Male actor & child walk by. She's asked to describe them. She does so. Her description is mostly right or partially right, or perhaps totally wrong.
However that turned out, how would it prove the parents' innocence?
If her sighting was indeed the duly identified Dr. Totman, it added nothing to the McCanns presumption of innocence & ruled out that potential abductor. So what would the PJ then have done about Smithman?
-
I'm not sure that just the presence and location of even one parked vehicle could have had a bearing on what was seen, or not seen as the case may be, by the two men whatever side of the road they stood on.
Jane had a clear view of the top of the road; but if Jes was content to be standing on the road with his son in a buggy while having a conversation, it suggests to me he may well have been standing behind a parked car.
It was of no importance to them at the time and would therefore not register but the presence of a vehicle or more than one, could materially alter the whole scenario.
I think the whole notion of a reconstruction involving only the individuals named is a nonsense which would have clarified nothing and since there was the possibility in my opinion, of self incrimination by participating no doubt they would also have to have been constituted arguidos. Including Jes Wilkins.
I can't remember if anyone had stated that they'd seen any cars. I'd said that the road was about 3 cars-width wide, as I'd looked at a random Google image in which a car was parked, and estimated that two more could have fitted side by side to give me an idea of how wide it was.
-
Why should they have to prove that someone did get in that way? How about their initial assumption was simply wrong?
I guess because access couldn't have been gained via the front door (without a key) & the officers had already decided the rear patio was too well-lit for entry to be attempted there. IMO (again) the reconstruction was not designed to assist in solving the crime.
-
(snip)
I think the whole notion of a reconstruction involving only the individuals named is a nonsense which would have clarified nothing and since there was the possibility in my opinion, of self incrimination by participating no doubt they would also have to have been constituted arguidos. Including Jes Wilkins.
And roughly a year later.
Yes, I hadn't thought that the rest of them might have to have become arguidos.
-
Section starting on p. 80 of the pdf (p. 78 of the doc).
Article 6 §2: presumption of innocence
https://www.echr.coe.int/LibraryDocs/Vitkauskas2012_EN.pdf
-
No! I missed a comma after the word ordered.
a comma is like the word but.
-
Starting with the first one:
1 - The physical, real and effective proximity between Jane Tanner, Gerald McCann and Jeremy Wilkins, at the moment when the first person walked by them, and which coincided with the sighting of the supposed suspect, carrying a child. It results, in our perspective, strange that neither Gerald McCann nor Jeremy Wilkins saw her, or the alleged abductor, despite the exiguity of the space and the peacefulness of the area;
Ok. Neither Gerry nor Jez saw Jane and they don't agree on their recollections of exactly where the three of them were standing. The road had two pavements and the road appears to be 3 car-widths wide.
How, concretly, would having Jane flip-flop by again with Gerry and Jez chatting away with a baby in a buggy demonstrate the parents' innocence? Or even their guilt, for that matter?
Gerry and Jez would only need to keep facing each other and not look up or over to Jane no matter how much noise she made. - simple.
-
2 - The situation concerning the window to the bedroom where Madeleine slept, together with the twins, which was open, according to Kate. It seemed then necessary to clarify if there was a draught, since movement of the curtains and pressure under the bedroom door are mentioned, which, eventually*, could be verified through the reconstitution;
Ok. The window issue. Kate goes through the motions of walking in and her whoosh scene. Assuming that the reconstruction took place on an evening with exactly the same wind conditions (which could only be an approximation as it wasn't as if there were 10000 monitors surrounding the flat to make precise measurements anyway).
If the curtains whoosh and the door slams. Does that mean she's innocent?
If the curtains don't whosh and the door doesn't slam on recon night, does that mean she's guilty of whatever happened to her daughter?
* Eventually - to check the word used in PT. I suspect it doesn't actually mean eventually as used in English, but possibly / potentially.
You don't need the whole crew there to test this one. Just get the weather to be the same.
-
Nope. I still don't get it. :(
From a PT citizens' rights site:
What does the presumption of innocence mean concerning an arguido? What rights does this presumption give?
The presumption of innocence means that everyone is considered innocent until he has been convicted by a final judgment - that is, of which he can no longer appeal - in a criminal court.
(...)
O que significa a presunção de inocência do arguido? Que direitos dá essa presunção?
Perguntas
A presunção de inocência significa que toda a pessoa é considerada inocente até ter sido condenada por sentença transitada em julgado — isto é, da qual já não se pode recorrer — num tribunal criminal.
https://www.direitosedeveres.pt/q/acesso-ao-direito-e-aos-tribunais/garantias-de-defesa-no-processo-criminal/o-que-significa-a-presuncao-de-inocencia-do-arguido-que-direitos-da-essa-presuncao
From the SC rejection:
Anyhow, the intention was only to counter the appellants' assertion that, with the aforementioned order, it had been demonstrated that they were innocent.
Thus, in one form or another, whatever the grounds for the closure of the investigation and the preclusive effects of the respective decision (that has not the value of res judicata, which refers exclusively to decisions of a judicial nature, but is a “decided case” or “close to res judicata” - cf. op. cit. pp. 929 and 932), we would always consider that the public criticism and the public scrutiny of the functioning of justice were not impeded, as stated in the ruling in question.
That is to say, we would always conclude that the presumption of innocence principle would not be pertinent for the decision on the issue that we had to resolve.
Did Isabel Duarte actually say "demonstrated that they were innocent"? If so, perhaps not the best phrasing.
According to the SC's logic, as they weren't tried and found innocent, they are therefore not entitled to the presumption of innocence - i.e., everyone is presumed guilty until they have been proved innocent by the court of last instance.
The McCann's lawyers argued that the archiving dispatch was res judicata, so had the same standing as a court decision. As it had declared them innocent (277/1) anyone accusing them of a crime (Amaral et al) was depriving them of the presumption of innocence.
The SC judges said it wasn't res judicata, and anyway it didn't declare them innocent. Reading the whole text it was clear to them that it was closed due to insufficient evidence, not because enough evidence had been gathered to rule them out. That meant it was archived under 277/2 and the prosecutors had used the wrong part of the Article.
-
Where does it say it cant
It’s a supreme court document with the words you questioned in.
-
The McCann's lawyers argued that the archiving dispatch was res judicata, so had the same standing as a court decision. As it had declared them innocent (277/1) anyone accusing them of a crime (Amaral et al) was depriving them of the presumption of innocence.
The SC judges said it wasn't res judicata, and anyway it didn't declare them innocent. Reading the whole text it was clear to them that it was closed due to insufficient evidence, not because enough evidence had been gathered to rule them out. That meant it was archived under 277/2 and the prosecutors had used the wrong part of the Article.
That is a well put argument G-unit.
-
I agree. There is absolutely no way a reconstruction involving Kate & Gerry could have shown that someone did enter by the window, especially as forensics showed nothing. If the McCanns couldn't prove that entry was gained in that manner, where did it leave their testimonies/innocence once Jane had been discredited?
IMO what a reconstruction may have challenged is the checking routine. Which ironically enough could have given more time for Madeleine to go missing without being observed.
-
That is a well put argument G-unit.
Thank you Rob.
On the
matter of the reconstitution; it may have been a complete waste of time or it may not. The fact that the witnesses refused to attend is the important point. Because they refused the prosecutor was able to write;
We believe that the main damage was caused to the McCann arguidos, who lost the possibility to prove what they have protested since they were constituted arguidos: their innocence towards the fateful event
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/LEGAL_SUMMARY.htm
That passage states quite clearly that the McCanns remained uncleared at the time of the archiving. 277/1 is used when the prosecutor has concluded that there's enough evidence to show that the arguidos are innocent.
-
a comma is like the word but.
A comma is a punctuation mark; "but" is a word.
You asked me if I had omitted BUT, I said no I had omitted a comma. As I was the author of the piece I was in a better position to know how I intended to convey my message than you were.
I am not interested in silly ping pong games about English grammar so let's call it a day at this point.
-
A comma is a punctuation mark; "but" is a word.
You asked me if I had omitted BUT, I said no I had omitted a comma. As I was the author of the piece I was in a better position to know how I intended to convey my message than you were.
I am not interested in silly ping pong games about English grammar so let's call it a day at this point.
I still think this very well written summary requires a "but" in it.
"Yeah, but our laws are considered "third world" in large parts of the west.
The McCann v Amaral case ceased to be a libel trial early doors.
Bearing in mind it was 1.2MM writ, most of it was thrown out on the first pass. The final judgment in the court of first instance came down to whether Mr Amaral, as a former employee of the state, remained bound by the same rules in retirement as he was when in employment. If so and he had profited by bucking those rules the judge had to decide how the balance be redressed and rule on it, to whit pay the dosh plus interest to the plaintiff. Which is what she ordered[, or but] that judgement was subsequently appealed to by Mr. Amaral"
-
The McCann's lawyers argued that the archiving dispatch was res judicata, so had the same standing as a court decision. As it had declared them innocent (277/1) anyone accusing them of a crime (Amaral et al) was depriving them of the presumption of innocence.
The SC judges said it wasn't res judicata, and anyway it didn't declare them innocent. Reading the whole text it was clear to them that it was closed due to insufficient evidence, not because enough evidence had been gathered to rule them out. That meant it was archived under 277/2 and the prosecutors had used the wrong part of the Article.
There are so many points of contention here it's difficult to know where to start...
Do you have a cite fir the McCann's felt they had been declared innocent..
What the SC seems to have done... As Carana also pointed out... Is replace the McCann's presumption of innocence with a presumption of guilt.... Another possible point fir the ECHR
-
Thank you Rob.
On the
matter of the reconstitution; it may have been a complete waste of time or it may not. The fact that the witnesses refused to attend is the important point. Because they refused the prosecutor was able to write;
We believe that the main damage was caused to the McCann arguidos, who lost the possibility to prove what they have protested since they were constituted arguidos: their innocence towards the fateful event
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/LEGAL_SUMMARY.htm
That passage states quite clearly that the McCanns remained uncleared at the time of the archiving. 277/1 is used when the prosecutor has concluded that there's enough evidence to show that the arguidos are innocent.
Whether or not enough evidence had been gathered, they had the right to the presumption of innocence did they not?
-
Whether or not enough evidence had been gathered, they had the right to the presumption of innocence did they not?
It would seem the SC thought not
-
It would seem the SC thought not
Then why not? That is the 64,000 euro question.
-
Whether or not enough evidence had been gathered, they had the right to the presumption of innocence did they not?
G-unit may be able to explain this, but it has to do with being able to prove innocence.
-
Then why not? That is the 64,000 euro question.
To me the SC drove a coach and horses through the McCanns human rights... It will be interesting to see what the ECHR have to say
-
G-unit may be able to explain this, but it has to do with being able to prove innocence.
No one should have to prove innocence... That's why there is a presumption of innocence
Gunit believes it does not apply in a civil case but libel cases I have quoted from the ECHR shows it does
-
G-unit may be able to explain this, but it has to do with being able to prove innocence.
Any idea how carrying out that reconstruction could have proven their innocence?
Even if, on the night, everything happened as they said it did, would that have finally invalidated the hypothesis that they could have been responsible for an as-yet undetermined crime concerning their daughter?
-
IMO what a reconstruction may have challenged is the checking routine. Which ironically enough could have given more time for Madeleine to go missing without being observed.
LOL I'd thought of that, as well.
Either they really did check on their kids at regular 30-45min intervals, with some passing by within 10-15 mins of each other), in which case the reconstruction might have been able to prove that some fat geezer had, in the meantime, got stuck in the window and they couldn't possibly have not noticed (the window was out of the line of vision for those heading towards the main entrance and was largely hidden behind a tree... but those are details).
Or, said geezer was slim and agile but would have needed more time to get through than the supposed timings allowed. Conclusion: their checks weren't as frequent as they'd said.
If that were the case, then indeed it would have left more time for someone to get in via that window.
If the police were only interested in entry via the window, the elephant in the room is whether or not the police had verified if someone could have got in at any time via either door, and not the window as the parents had originally assumed.
Isn't that a bit self-defeating?
-
This proving innocence really is total rubbish... Barry George has had two court cases, and still hasn't proved his innocence. Itcan be absolutely impossible to prove innocence so why do the Portuguese expect it... It's totally against natural justice... Imo
-
No one should have to prove innocence... That's why there is a presumption of innocence
Gunit believes it does not apply in a civil case but libel cases I have quoted from the ECHR shows it does
As a moral principle, I certainly agree with you, Davel. The question is when does it apply - or not apply - in a legal sense.
-
There are so many points of contention here it's difficult to know where to start...
Do you have a cite fir the McCann's felt they had been declared innocent..
What the SC seems to have done... As Carana also pointed out... Is replace the McCann's presumption of innocence with a presumption of guilt.... Another possible point fir the ECHR
It's not easy to answer either. I think I referred to the McCann team, rather than the McCanns themselves. Archiving using 277/1 is, according to Duarte, an assurance that the arguidos were innocent because;
Article 277 - Archiving of the investigation
1 - The Public Ministry shall, by dispatch, close the investigation, as soon as it has gathered sufficient evidence that the crime was not confirmed, that the arguido did not practice it in any way or that the procedure is legally inadmissible
http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/Annulment_request.htm
-
It's not easy to answer either. I think I referred to the McCann team, rather than the McCanns themselves. Archiving using 277/1 is, according to Duarte, an assurance that the arguidos were innocent because;
Article 277 - Archiving of the investigation
1 - The Public Ministry shall, by dispatch, close the investigation, as soon as it has gathered sufficient evidence that the crime was not confirmed, that the arguido did not practice it in any way or that the procedure is legally inadmissible
http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/Annulment_request.htm
so in reality your claim taht the mccanns felt...they had been declared innocent..has no basis in fact...and just another myth
-
quote,,,,,,,,,At no stage of the criminal justice process is anyone required to prove their innocence. At trial, the onus is placed on the Crown to show beyond reasonable doubt that the accused person is guilty. At appeal, the court decides whether fresh admissible evidence or some significant defect at trial renders the conviction ‘unsafe’. Appellants are not obliged to produce proof of innocence but rather that the evidence which convicted them is seriously flawed. In practice, the substantial majority of truly innocent (but convicted) persons would struggle to provide proof that they couldn’t have committed the offence.
https://www.insidejusticeuk.com/articles/proving-innocence/63
-
Any idea how carrying out that reconstruction could have proven their innocence?
Even if, on the night, everything happened as they said it did, would that have finally invalidated the hypothesis that they could have been responsible for an as-yet undetermined crime concerning their daughter?
Nobody knows because they didn't do it. That refusal to cooperate with the investigators had significant and far-reaching consequences.
-
Nobody knows because they didn't do it. That refusal to cooperate with the investigators had significant and far-reaching consequences.
it may have but it should not have...remember the mccanns did not refuse
-
Nobody knows because they didn't do it. That refusal to cooperate with the investigators had significant and far-reaching consequences.
it dpesnt ke much thought to realise tht a reconstruction could not prove their innocence. the only ay the mccanns can prove their inocence is if the actual culprit is found and their is overwhelming evidence to convict him
-
Nobody knows because they didn't do it. That refusal to cooperate with the investigators had significant and far-reaching consequences.
Only because of the bizarre totally (IMO) illogical machinations of the PT judicial system.
-
Only because of the bizarre totally (IMO) illogical machinations of the PT judicial system.
The system is what it is and one has to accept that, however unhappy one might be about it.
-
The system is what it is and one has to accept that, however unhappy one might be about it.
one doesnt have to accept it..thats what the ECHR is for
-
The system is what it is and one has to accept that, however unhappy one might be about it.
If that were true then there would never be challenges to miscarriages of justice.
-
quote,,,,,,,,,At no stage of the criminal justice process is anyone required to prove their innocence. At trial, the onus is placed on the Crown to show beyond reasonable doubt that the accused person is guilty. At appeal, the court decides whether fresh admissible evidence or some significant defect at trial renders the conviction ‘unsafe’. Appellants are not obliged to produce proof of innocence but rather that the evidence which convicted them is seriously flawed. In practice, the substantial majority of truly innocent (but convicted) persons would struggle to provide proof that they couldn’t have committed the offence.
https://www.insidejusticeuk.com/articles/proving-innocence/63
Wasn't that an issue for the Bristol landlord in the Joanna Yeates' case? The person who tried to incriminate him was eventually convicted as the murderer.
Even so, he'd given the police reason to suspect the landlord, who, IIRC, couldn't prove his whereabouts that evening. He said he was at home, but there was no way for the police to verify it.
-
If that were true then there would never be challenges to miscarriages of justice.
I was meaning un-involved people in general, not those personally involved
-
Question: in Portugal, would Amaral have been considered a "person of recognised public standing" or not?
-
This proving innocence really is total rubbish... Barry George has had two court cases, and still hasn't proved his innocence. Itcan be absolutely impossible to prove innocence so why do the Portuguese expect it... It's totally against natural justice... Imo
According to the text of 277/1 sometimes enough evidence is gathered to prove that the arguido(s) didn't commit a crime. Isabel Duarte claimed that this was the case in this investigation. Had the group attended the reconstitution that may have been true, but they didn't.
-
Thank you Rob.
On the
matter of the reconstitution; it may have been a complete waste of time or it may not. The fact that the witnesses refused to attend is the important point. Because they refused the prosecutor was able to write;
We believe that the main damage was caused to the McCann arguidos, who lost the possibility to prove what they have protested since they were constituted arguidos: their innocence towards the fateful event
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/LEGAL_SUMMARY.htm
That passage states quite clearly that the McCanns remained uncleared at the time of the archiving. 277/1 is used when the prosecutor has concluded that there's enough evidence to show that the arguidos are innocent.
Ok, let's assume that 277/2 was correct, after all.
When does the presumption of innocence apply - and no longer apply - with respect to defamation / personal rights in terms of the media?
NB: Incidentally, was Amaral aware of this alleged "mistake" re 227/1 or /2 at the time, when his book had already been printed and was ready for sale as of 24 July 2008?
https://joana-morais.blogspot.com/2008/07/truth-of-lie-release-of-gonalo-amarals.html
-
Any idea how carrying out that reconstruction could have proven their innocence?
Even if, on the night, everything happened as they said it did, would that have finally invalidated the hypothesis that they could have been responsible for an as-yet undetermined crime concerning their daughter?
The only solution as I see it would have been if everyone bent over backwards to attend a re-enactment and actually turned up en-mass for then the PJ would have had the problem.
-
Does the blame lie with the Portuguese legal system or with the McCann's Portuguese lawyers who should have understood Portuguese law?
It seems that Duarte's arguments convinced Maria Emília Guerreiro de Avillez Melo e Castro in the court of the first instance, but not the more knowledgeable and experienced senior judges of the Appeal and Supreme Courts.
-
Does the blame lie with the Portuguese legal system or with the McCann's Portuguese lawyers who should have understood Portuguese law?
It seems that Duarte's arguments convinced Maria Emília Guerreiro de Avillez Melo e Castro in the court of the first instance, but not the more knowledgeable and experienced senior judges of the Appeal and Supreme Courts.
Fair question.
-
According to the text of 277/1 sometimes enough evidence is gathered to prove that the arguido(s) didn't commit a crime. Isabel Duarte claimed that this was the case in this investigation. Had the group attended the reconstitution that may have been true, but they didn't.
Have you had time to think of how that reconstruction could have proved their innocence in practice? I tried, but I really don't see how it could have done.
-
Have you had time to think of how that reconstruction could have proved their innocence in practice? I tried, but I really don't see how it could have done.
Maybe it was impossible but the first thing was for the actors to turn up.
-
Have you had time to think of how that reconstruction could have proved their innocence in practice? I tried, but I really don't see how it could have done.
A reconstruction may have proved the opposite, but that would have been an equally worthy outcome for anyone interested in solving the disappearance.
-
A reconstruction may have proved the opposite, but that would have been an equally worthy outcome for anyone interested in solving the disappearance.
How could it have done that either?
-
Ok, let's assume that 277/2 was correct, after all.
When does the presumption of innocence apply - and no longer apply - with respect to defamation / personal rights in terms of the media?
NB: Incidentally, was Amaral aware of this alleged "mistake" re 227/1 or /2 at the time, when his book had already been printed and was ready for sale as of 24 July 2008?
https://joana-morais.blogspot.com/2008/07/truth-of-lie-release-of-gonalo-amarals.html
Accordingly, this principle can not be construed as a restriction on public discussion of potentially criminal facts, despite that public bodies should, in their communications, resort to the necessary reserve to avoid creating the conviction that the arguido is in fact guilty (Cf. Konstas vs Greece of 28/11/ 11 (n° 053466/071).
http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/STJ_21_03_2017_Rejected.htm
-
Accordingly, this principle can not be construed as a restriction on public discussion of potentially criminal facts, despite that public bodies should, in their communications, resort to the necessary reserve to avoid creating the conviction that the arguido is in fact guilty (Cf. Konstas vs Greece of 28/11/ 11 (n° 053466/071).
http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/STJ_21_03_2017_Rejected.htm
this is exactly what amaral didn't do...…..
-
How could it have done that either?
As it didn't happen, who knows.
-
Maybe it was impossible but the first thing was for the actors to turn up.
the problem was that the tapas had no confidence..faith or trust in the PJ..imo….and quite rightly too. They may have felt they could all be arrested and I certainly don't blame them
-
According to the text of 277/1 sometimes enough evidence is gathered to prove that the arguido(s) didn't commit a crime. Isabel Duarte claimed that this was the case in this investigation. Had the group attended the reconstitution that may have been true, but they didn't.
PDC has said there is no evidence against the parents...surely in a just society that is enough to consider their non involvement...and as Carana has said...how could a recon prove innocence..it makes no sense imo
-
the problem was that the tapas had no confidence..faith or trust in the PJ..imo….and quite rightly too. They may have felt they could all be arrested and I certainly don't blame them
According to Bridget O'Donnell it was a situation that Jes took very seriously as far as he was concerned. He had a walk on part ... how much more worried would each of the McCann friends have been given the very bad coverage they had experienced at the hands of the press based mainly on leaks from 'a source close to the investigation'.
-
Have you had time to think of how that reconstruction could have proved their innocence in practice? I tried, but I really don't see how it could have done.
I agree.
It was, however, a diligence that should have been carried out and wasn't. Therefore the PJ were within their rights to request it. For them, the outcome was perhaps less important than the 'dotting of i's and crossing of t's' prior to archiving the case.
The refusals to attend by the witnesses handed the moral high ground to the Portuguese authorities. They were willing to keep on investigating.The friends and acquaintances of the McCanns were unwilling to cooperate with them.
-
I agree.
It was, however, a diligence that should have been carried out and wasn't. Therefore the PJ were within their rights to request it. For them, the outcome was perhaps less important than the 'dotting of i's and crossing of t's' prior to archiving the case.
The refusals to attend by the witnesses handed the moral high ground to the Portuguese authorities. They were willing to keep on investigating.The friends and acquaintances of the McCanns were unwilling to cooperate with them.
what an admission of the futility of the recon...yet the SC attached so much importance to it...disgraceful.imo
-
this is exactly what amaral didn't do...…..
He wasn't a member of a 'public body', despite accusations by Duarte that he was still restricted as a retired police officer. The first judge fell for that, but not the senior judges.
-
I agree.
It was, however, a diligence that should have been carried out and wasn't. Therefore the PJ were within their rights to request it. For them, the outcome was perhaps less important than the 'dotting of i's and crossing of t's' prior to archiving the case.
The refusals to attend by the witnesses handed the moral high ground to the Portuguese authorities. They were willing to keep on investigating.The friends and acquaintances of the McCanns were unwilling to cooperate with them.
If the diligence should already have been carried out, why wasn't it? Why did it have to wait until Rebelo took over from Amaral?
Rebelo was carrying out procedures as we would know them when he took over the case, probably in my opinion to give him a better understanding of the situation.
The high moral ground was in my opinion lost to Portugal when procedures such as the reconstitution were neglected by the police and when material witnesses were so terrified of their position that they consulted lawyers about the advisability of returning to Portugal.
-
He wasn't a member of a 'public body', despite accusations by Duarte that he was still restricted as a retired police officer. The first judge fell for that, but not the senior judges.
it may well be the first judge being younger was in touch with current thinking whilst the older SC judges were not
-
what an admission of the futility of the recon...yet the SC attached so much importance to it...denying the mccanns the presumption of innocence...disgraceful.imo
You seem to be taking about four discrete sections of Portuguese law mixing and muddling them up then drawing a conclusion from the mixture.
Precisely how do you believe the McCann's right to a presumption of innocence has been denied or infringed?
-
He wasn't a member of a 'public body', despite accusations by Duarte that he was still restricted as a retired police officer. The first judge fell for that, but not the senior judges.
In my opinion if it was possible for him to retain the rank and privilege he enjoyed as a member of the PJ while drawing the pension he had worked for albeit two years earlier than he had perhaps hoped he did indeed continue to be governed by the rules of being a former member of a public body.
In my opinion he at least owed some discretion.
-
the problem was that the tapas had no confidence..faith or trust in the PJ..imo….and quite rightly too. They may have felt they could all be arrested and I certainly don't blame them
That's what they said, right enough. This is what Rebelo said;
In Portugal, the Criminal Investigation is conducted by the Policia Judiciaria, under the supervision of the Public Prosecutor's Office.
The competence to evaluate the interest and need for the performance of any Criminal Inquiry lies with these two entities, not with the witnesses......
Following the messages sent by the wittnesses', I hereby inform you that both the PJ and the Public Prosecutor responsible for the Investigation consider all the questions and doubts previously raised by the witnesses' to have been properly answered.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/RE_ENACTMENT.htm
-
it may well be the first judge being younger was in touch with current thinking whilst the older SC judges were not
Judges young or old "do law".
-
what an admission of the futility of the recon...yet the SC attached so much importance to it...denying the mccanns the presumption of innocence...disgraceful.imo
It was the public prosecutor who said they lost the chance to prove their innocence. Remember him? The man Duarte argued had ruled the McCanns innocent in his archiving dispatch? She must have missed that bit.
-
Judges young or old "do law".
every profession is the same...some do it better than others
-
It was the public prosecutor who said they lost the chance to prove their innocence. Remember him? The man Duarte argued had ruled the McCanns innocent in his archiving dispatch? She must have missed that bit.
not only didn't I miss it I pointed out to Anne Gueddes that the transaltion was wrong and she agreed with me...the report used the word comprovar which means demonstrate rather than provar which means prove
-
In my opinion if it was possible for him to retain the rank and privilege he enjoyed as a member of the PJ while drawing the pension he had worked for albeit two years earlier than he had perhaps hoped he did indeed continue to be governed by the rules of being a former member of a public body.
In my opinion he at least owed some discretion.
Perhaps you should tell the Portuguese what you think? They might even be interested, but I doubt it.
-
not only didn't I miss it I pointed out to Anne Gueddes that the transaltion was wrong and she agreed with me...the report used the word comprovar which means demonstrate rather than provar which means prove
I think we all know what he meant; their innocence had been neither proved nor demonstrated, despite Duarte's claim that it had (277/1 again)
-
I think we all know what he meant; their innocence had been neither proved nor demonstrated, despite Duarte's claim that it had (277/1 again)
I disagree and we have been through this before...the lack of evidence against them would result ina n acquittal if it went to court and is evidence of their innocence
-
Perhaps you should tell the Portuguese what you think? They might even be interested, but I doubt it.
I think they may probably be aware of it ... you appear to be the one with the problem regarding it or else why the hostility?
-
every profession is the same...some do it better than others
You were implying it was age related in the case of Portuguese judges.
-
Page one of the final report - Type of crime UNKNOWN.
Can any find a single Portuguese media report which states that Robert Murat was anything other than cleared of this unknown crime?
-
You were implying it was age related in the case of Portuguese judges.
.
I think it might be ...but I'm sure they will respect my freedom of speech
-
I agree.
It was, however, a diligence that should have been carried out and wasn't. Therefore the PJ were within their rights to request it. For them, the outcome was perhaps less important than the 'dotting of i's and crossing of t's' prior to archiving the case.
The refusals to attend by the witnesses handed the moral high ground to the Portuguese authorities. They were willing to keep on investigating.The friends and acquaintances of the McCanns were unwilling to cooperate with them.
Yes, I agree with quite a bit of that.
My impression is that Rebelo was a box-ticker - not out to "get" anyone or play at King Kong, just trying to quietly clear up what he could of the general mess within a very limited time.
It was indeed a diligence that could be requested, possibly with no more intent than making sure that no one could complain that he'd ignored the possibility of organising one.
I can imagine that deciding not to attend wasn't appreciated - and some kind of reprimand was deemed appropriate. However, IMO, the prosecutor went a bit overboard on that one.
On the T9 + 1 side, I can also understand their suspicions. I'd be astonished if they weren't aware of a certain bizarre "reconstruction" in Amaral's only other major case as a coordinator and what that led to. Without the benefit of hindsight, they had no way of assessing whether Rebelo was fair and objective or not.
Russell apparently discovered (cf rog) that the date had been leaked to the media (I haven't seen this, so I've no way of verifying that). I've no idea whether he saw it personally, or whether someone simply told him. True or false, the media had stalked them outside their home and even at his place of work in anticipation of an imminent arrest based on yet another half-baked leak.
They would presumably have been aware, by that time, that there was no way that attending it could lead to taking the investigation back to zero and follow up on leads that didn't involve the arguidos due to time constraints.
Rightly or wrongly, I can well imagine that they feared being paraded under the media projectors to instructions according to some pre-ordained scenario, and somehow being "stitched up", and made arguidos themselves for one reason or another. In that sense, their question of "how will this help find Madeleine?" seems valid to me.
If they were indeed already suspicious, I can also imagine how they may have interpreted the request NOT to bring their children as hardly appeasing:
2 - There is no need for the witnesses to be accompanied by their children. For efficiency and celerity purposes, we indeed request that the children don't accompany their parents;
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/RE_ENACTMENT.htm
So, if indeed 277/2 is the correct interpretation, they are no longer suspects in the investigations in either country, but because they are no longer arguidos, there is no presumption of innocence protection.
Does that therefore leave them in a limbo land in which they have no legal redress over perpetual accusations of unproven criminal activity?
-
Yes, I agree with quite a bit of that.
My impression is that Rebelo was a box-ticker - not out to "get" anyone or play at King Kong, just trying to quietly clear up what he could of the general mess within a very limited time.
It was indeed a diligence that could be requested, possibly with no more intent than making sure that no one could complain that he'd ignored the possibility of organising one.
I can imagine that deciding not to attend wasn't appreciated - and some kind of reprimand was deemed appropriate. However, IMO, the prosecutor went a bit overboard on that one.
On the T9 + 1 side, I can also understand their suspicions. I'd be astonished if they weren't aware of a certain bizarre "reconstruction" in Amaral's only other major case as a coordinator and what that led to. Without the benefit of hindsight, they had no way of assessing whether Rebelo was fair and objective or not.
Russell apparently discovered (cf rog) that the date had been leaked to the media (I haven't seen this, so I've no way of verifying that). I've no idea whether he saw it personally, or whether someone simply told him. True or false, the media had been stalked outside their home and even at his place of work in anticipation of an imminent arrest based on yet another half-baked leak.
They would presumably have been aware, by that time, that there was no way that attending it could lead to taking the investigation back to zero and follow up on leads that didn't involve the arguidos due to time constraints.
Rightly or wrongly, I can well imagine that they feared being paraded under the media projectors to instructions according to some pre-ordained scenario, and somehow being "stitched up", and made arguidos themselves for one reason or another. In that sense, their question of "how will this help find Madeleine?" seems valid to me.
If they were indeed already suspicious, I can also imagine how they may have interpreted the request NOT to bring their children as hardly appeasing:
2 - There is no need for the witnesses to be accompanied by their children. For efficiency and celerity purposes, we indeed request that the children don't accompany their parents;
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/RE_ENACTMENT.htm
So, if indeed 277/2 is the correct interpretation, they are no longer suspects in the investigations in either country, but because they are no longer arguidos, there is no presumption of innocence protection..
Does that therefore leave them in a limbo land in which they have no legal redress over perpetual accusations of unproven criminal activity?
Very likely. Life can be such a bummer sometimes.
-
Very likely. Life can be such a bummer sometimes.
Indeed.
No need for mods to attempt to moderate defamatory comment then. If you're not a suspect in a crime, then it's fair game for anyone to accuse anyone of munching on newborn kittens for breakfast.
Where's the limit?
-
I disagree and we have been through this before...the lack of evidence against them would result ina n acquittal if it went to court and is evidence of their innocence
Their innocence or guilt has not been subject to test. The only reason it came into the SC judgment was because their team claimed they had been cleared, a fairly bad move IMO.
-
Indeed.
No need for mods to attempt to moderate defamatory comment then. If you're not a suspect in a crime, then it's fair game for anyone to accuse anyone of munching on newborn kittens for breakfast.
Where's the limit?
You may not intend it but you sound a little bitter
-
Their innocence or guilt has not been subject to test. The only reason it came into the SC judgment was because their team claimed they had been cleared, a fairly bad move IMO.
But in a more general sense, if none of us here are currently officially suspects in some crime or other, is it ok to have a free-for-all accusing each other of whatever comes into our heads?
-
But in a more general sense, if none of us here are currently officially suspects in some crime or other, is it ok to have a free-for-all accusing each other of whatever comes into our heads?
Not a free for all, just someone involved in the investigation writing what the investigation thought up to a certain point.
-
Their innocence or guilt has not been subject to test. The only reason it came into the SC judgment was because their team claimed they had been cleared, a fairly bad move IMO.
If they have not been cleared, then neither has Murat, agreed?
-
If they have not been cleared, then neither has Murat, agreed?
Has that any relevance or is it just a bit of whataboutry?
-
Not a free for all, just someone involved in the investigation writing what the investigation thought up to a certain point.
What date was the book published in Portugal?
-
Has that any relevance or is it just a bit of whataboutry?
Well I think it does because all three arguidos were "de-arguidoed" at the same time, with the same wording. Therefore presumably what applies to one, applies to all. If the McCanns are "not cleared" then is there any reason to suppose that Murat has also not been cleared? And if he has not been cleared does that mean someone from the original investigation could write a book about how they believed Murat was involved in the disappearance and that their freedom of expression would trump Murat's right not to be libelled in such a way?
-
You may not intend it but you sound a little bitter
No, not at all. I happen to find it disturbing (for anyone) to continue to be harrassed by unproven allegations of criminal activity apparently without any form of redress. Media treatment in the UK has been outrageous in some respects, IMO, and some of the contempt of court rulings are simply not adapted to the current instant access to background information that the media can be forbidden to discuss, pending the outcome. I can understand the principle, simply I find it inadequate.
It could one day happen to me, to you, or to anyone.
Even if Madeleine is dead, she might have been alive for some time. Encouraging people to assume that the culprit is "known" (whoever that may be) doesn't really move anything forward, does it?
ETA: The PT tabloids were even worse... they really didn't even bother to attempt any form of unbiased journalism.
-
Not a free for all, just someone involved in the investigation writing what the investigation thought up to a certain point.
The investigation never thought it could be proved Maddie died in the apartment and the death wad covered up by the parents... It was one option
-
SY believed Colin Stagg was guilty of murder... Do the sceptics herevthinknit would have been acceptable for one of the detectives to wrote a book and appear on TV saying he could prove Stagg was guilty.... Does any sceptics think that would be fair... I already know what supporters would think
-
The investigation never thought it could be proved Maddie died in the apartment and the death wad covered up by the parents... It was one option
Quite - according to the sceptics the PJ were still following up on sightings at this time so they couldn't have been 100% convinced that Madeleine died in the apartment.
-
PDC has said there is no evidence against the parents...surely in a just society that is enough to consider their non involvement...and as Carana has said...how could a recon prove innocence..it makes no sense imo
The fact that the others resisted turning up would be viewed as a guilty reaction. Do you really think the UK would have stood back and allowed 6 of their doctors to be arrested on no evidence at all?
-
According to Bridget O'Donnell it was a situation that Jes took very seriously as far as he was concerned. He had a walk on part ... how much more worried would each of the McCann friends have been given the very bad coverage they had experienced at the hands of the press based mainly on leaks from 'a source close to the investigation'.
was it "walk on" and "walk off"?
-
You were implying it was age related in the case of Portuguese judges.
It was suggested as a possibility only.
-
Has that any relevance or is it just a bit of whataboutry?
It does. How come one can be cleared and others not?
-
The fact that the others resisted turning up would be viewed as a guilty reaction. Do you really think the UK would have stood back and allowed 6 of their doctors to be arrested on no evidence at all?
What people don't realise us that the UK could do nothing about it....
-
What people don't realise us that the UK could do nothing about it....
We seem to do things when the person in question is as guilty as sin...
-
We seem to do things when the person in question is as guilty as sin...
That requires a cite... My opinon is your post is total BS... Feel free to prove me wrong
-
What people don't realise us that the UK could do nothing about it....
Of course they could. Even going to the extent of going to war. There could have been many reactions less drastic than that too.
-
Of course they could. Even going to the extent of going to war. There could have been many reactions less drastic than that too.
Al your opion and IMO totally wrong... The UK govt cannot interfere in the judicial process of another country.... Give me an example
-
It does. How come one can be cleared and others not?
It might be that one was thoroughly investigated by two police forces and the other two weren't.
-
It might be that one was thoroughly investigated by two police forces and the other two weren't.
The point is if that was the case it should have said that.
-
It might be that one was thoroughly investigated by two police forces and the other two weren't.
Are you suggesting that the PJ failed to thoroughly investigate the McCanns?
-
Or perhaps just insufficient evidence to get Murat into court.... Sometimes, the police know, who dild something but just can't prove it
Based on hunches or evidence?
-
Based on hunches or evidence?
Just hunches... But that's all the police need to start to build a case...or in portugal,,,prosecute
-
If they have not been cleared, then neither has Murat, agreed?
Have Murats legal team appeared in a court of law proclaiming as much?
-
Have Murats legal team appeared in a court of law proclaiming as much?
What’s that got to do with it?
-
Have Murats legal team appeared in a court of law proclaiming as much?
are you trying to tell me hes innocent,,
-
Murat sued CdaM and won on appeal.
-
Their innocence or guilt has not been subject to test. The only reason it came into the SC judgment was because their team claimed they had been cleared, a fairly bad move IMO.
If they have not been cleared, then neither has Murat, agreed?
Have Murats legal team appeared in a court of law proclaiming as much?
Whats that got to do with it?
All in the above.
-
its a pity the appeal to the ECHR takes so long...its a pity justice takes so long
-
Murat sued CdaM and won on appeal.
What they printed were personal attacks on his character;
“Robert Murat is a predator who visits sites containing sexual violence”
http://theportugalnews.com/news/robert-murat-wins-slander-case-as-kate-mccann-visits-luz/28371
-
We seem to do things when the person in question is as guilty as sin...
Im bumping this posr because it really does need a cite ...but slarti cant seem to provide one
-
its a pity the appeal to the ECHR takes so long...its a pity justice takes so long
20 years in the case of "The McLibel Trial".
-
20 years in the case of "The McLibel Trial".
yes its a disgrace isnt it
-
All in the above.
So Murat hasn’t been cleared then?
-
yes its a disgrace isnt it
Ten years of the ECtHR faffing about didn't help.
It could have been worse. A fraud case in India went on for ca 40 years, IIRC, only to be tossed out when the last living witness turned his toes up.
-
its a pity the appeal to the ECHR takes so long...its a pity justice takes so long
I'd be careful what you wish for if I were you. Litigation is always risky and the outcome can be disappointing.
-
I'd be careful what you wish for if I were you. Litigation is always risky and the outcome can be disappointing.
are you under the impresion im considering litigation,,,,what gives you that idea
-
What they printed were personal attacks on his character;
“Robert Murat is a predator who visits sites containing sexual violence”
http://theportugalnews.com/news/robert-murat-wins-slander-case-as-kate-mccann-visits-luz/28371
Yes, I know. After a year of merciless attack, he was only awarded €10k - and that only on appeal. I'm not sure who leaked in that instance, the "witness" in question (whom Murat successfully sued) or whether it was that naughty fan again.
His family was also hounded in the UK.
He did get a substantially bigger award from the UK media.
-
Ten years of the ECtHR faffing about didn't help.
It could have been worse. A fraud case in India went on for ca 40 years, IIRC, only to be tossed out when the last living witness turned his toes up.
Yeah, not sure how many of us will be around in 2118...
-
What they printed were personal attacks on his character;
“Robert Murat is a predator who visits sites containing sexual violence”
http://theportugalnews.com/news/robert-murat-wins-slander-case-as-kate-mccann-visits-luz/28371
The nature of the attacks were different, but some of the allegations against him were also of a criminal nature.as well.
What's the difference?
Does it all really hinge on that reconstruction?
-
The nature of the attacks were different, but some of the allegations against him were also of a criminal nature.as well.
What's the difference?
Does it all really hinge on that reconstruction?
Could they all agree to do a reconstruction now and put it behind them?
-
Yes, I know. After a year of merciless attack, he was only awarded €10k - and that only on appeal. I'm not sure who leaked in that instance, the "witness" in question (whom Murat successfully sued) or whether it was that naughty fan again.
His family was also hounded in the UK.
He did get a substantially bigger award from the UK media.
I note that the court did not apparently say the published allegations against RM were untrue, merely that they were not in the public interest & an infringement of his rights.
-
I note that the court did not apparently say the published allegations against RM were untrue, merely that they were not in the public interest & an infringement of his rights.
That seems to be a difference in that system - whether what is said is true or not doesn't appear to matter; what does is the damange caused by what is said.
I was going to post an extract from something to that effect the other day and promptly lost it.
IIRC, he also sued the so-called witness and won. At least one of those allegations defies the imagination. Well mine, anyway. lol
-
That seems to be a difference in that system - whether what is said is true or not doesn't appear to matter; what does is the damange caused by what is said.
I was going to post an extract from something to that effect the other day and promptly lost it.
IIRC, he also sued the so-called witness and won. At least one of those allegations defies the imagination. Well mine, anyway. lol
I wonder what happened in the cases he brought against other Portuguese media outlets?
http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/Nigel/id218.htm
The lawyer tells how the PJ's attitude changed Publico
by Idalio Revez
05 March 2010
snipped
Concerning the British media, his position is very critical: "The press was biased. The news was broken in the following way: "This man is guilty, we have already caught him and it was even us who turned him over to the police"," he says, alluding to the journalist who said she had noted "strange" signs in Murat during his contact with the media. But there is a difference in the way that these cases are handled in Portugal and in England. The lawsuits that were filed against the British press were swiftly settled with a "deal" concerning the amount of the compensation. In our country, "there is no evolution" concerning the five lawsuits that have been filed almost one year ago.
"The sensationalist newspapers are sensationalist by nature. The others just did their job," he says.
and https://joana-morais.blogspot.com/2009/05/robert-murat-sues-jornal-do-barlavento.html
Robert Murat, an arguido that was cleared in the Maddie case stated that he is to start judicial proceedings over defamation against Portuguese media. He claims compensation amounting 140 thousand euros.
Articles and contents that were allegedly published and broadcast by Jornal do Barlavento, Jornal de Notícias and TVI are at stake.
source: Diário de Notícias, 22.05.2009
-
dog days are here!
-
Could they all agree to do a reconstruction now and put it behind them?
Bit late in the day I'd have thought. There was enough difficulty in remembering things clearly just a year later
-
Bit late in the day I'd have thought. There was enough difficulty in remembering things clearly just a year later
Allow a week to sort things out. I can't see how a full reconstruction of the events could be re-enacted in just one night.
-
Allow a week to sort things out. I can't see how a full reconstruction of the events could be re-enacted in just one night.
I quite agree.
There would need to be multiple re-runs, as various people would say say " no that doesn't work, it must have been a few minutes earlier/later". Eventually, with a lot of tweaking, it might just all work - or maybe not
All my own opinion, of course.
-
I think its clear there are quite a lot of areas where the MCCanns may well have legitimite grounds to appeal to the ECHR and its not hust the simple face saving exercise some think it is
-
Could they all agree to do a reconstruction now and put it behind them?
What for? The PJ have clearly said they aren't suspects. And haven't been for 10 years.
-
I think its clear there are quite a lot of areas where the MCCanns may well have legitimite grounds to appeal to the ECHR and its not hust the simple face saving exercise some think it is
Clear to you, perhaps. Could you please point out these various areas and legitimate grounds?
-
Clear to you, perhaps. Could you please point out these various areas and legitimate grounds?
Defamation and presumption of innocence.
-
Clear to you, perhaps. Could you please point out these various areas and legitimate grounds?
something else you dont seem to have an answer for.......the case was archived under article 271/1.....yet was reopened.....how is that possible given your understanding
-
This is a very important point and has not yet been explained...G-unit says the case could not be opened...Carana says it could...as it actually was i would appreciate G-unit's explanation
-
ahha bit of tension around here today 8)-))) posters do not have to explain anything to anyone imo
-
perhaps you are not following the debate...this is a very important point and has not yet been explained...gunit says the case could not be opened...carana says it could...as it actually was i would appreciate gunits explanation
Well why don't you research it and explain it in full rather than just saying the same thing over and over again.
-
Well why don't you research it and explain it in full rather than just saying the same thing over and over again.
I have asked gunit a question....if you can answer it fine then do...otherwise let gunit speak for herself. This question has not been answered...once again you are derailing threads...
-
something else you dont seem to have an answer for.......the case was archived under article 271/1.....yet was reopened.....how is that possible given your understanding
I seem to have more answers than you do my friend.
The McCann's lawyers seemed to have a problem with the reviewing and reopening of the investigation too. They appear to be arguing that only brand new information which wasn't in the existing files could be used to reopen the investigation. Not only that, the new information had to invalidate the grounds invoked by the Public Ministry in the filing order.
As I understand it, the grounds invoked (277/1) were that sufficient evidence had been gathered to show "that the arguido did not practice it in any way"
So what new information did the PJ discover or receive which changed that? I suppose only time will tell.
Article 277 - Archiving of the investigation
1 - The Public Ministry shall, by dispatch, close the investigation, as soon as it has gathered sufficient evidence that the crime was not confirmed, that the arguido did not practice it in any way or that the procedure is legally inadmissible
Article 279 - Reopening of the investigation
1. Once the period referred to in the previous article has expired, the investigation may be reopened only if new evidence appears to invalidate the grounds invoked by the Public Ministry in the filing order.
http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/Annulment_request.htm
According to the Policia Judiciaria they conducted a review of the material gathered by the archived investigation;
That reanalysis task, which took place during the last two and a half years, helped identify new evidence
http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/Nigel/id466.htm
According to the McCann's lawyers;
the invalidation of the grounds invoked by the Public Ministry's office in the filing order, made under the provisions of article 277-1 of the CPP, can only be based on new facts or elements of evidence unknown by the Public Ministry at the investigation’s time (11) and that, therefore, could not be presented and produced in order to be assessed and pondered in the decision.
However, inside the factual matter established as proved in the minutes, there is no fact capable of constituting ground for the review or reopening of the investigation
http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/Annulment_request.htm
-
ahha bit of tension around here today 8)-))) posters do not have to explain anything to anyone imo
The gentleman has yet to respond to this in post #1473
"Precisely how do you believe the McCann's right to a presumption of innocence has been denied or infringed?"
-
I seem to have more answers than you do my friend.
The McCann's lawyers seemed to have a problem with the reviewing and reopening of the investigation too. They appear to be arguing that only brand new information which wasn't in the existing files could be used to reopen the investigation. Not only that, the new information had to invalidate the grounds invoked by the Public Ministry in the filing order.
As I understand it, the grounds invoked (277/1) were that sufficient evidence had been gathered to show "that the arguido did not practice it in any way"
So what new information did the PJ discover or receive which changed that? I suppose only time will tell.
Article 277 - Archiving of the investigation
1 - The Public Ministry shall, by dispatch, close the investigation, as soon as it has gathered sufficient evidence that the crime was not confirmed, that the arguido did not practice it in any way or that the procedure is legally inadmissible
Article 279 - Reopening of the investigation
1. Once the period referred to in the previous article has expired, the investigation may be reopened only if new evidence appears to invalidate the grounds invoked by the Public Ministry in the filing order.
http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/Annulment_request.htm
According to the Policia Judiciaria they conducted a review of the material gathered by the archived investigation;
That reanalysis task, which took place during the last two and a half years, helped identify new evidence
http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/Nigel/id466.htm
According to the McCann's lawyers;
the invalidation of the grounds invoked by the Public Ministry's office in the filing order, made under the provisions of article 277-1 of the CPP, can only be based on new facts or elements of evidence unknown by the Public Ministry at the investigation’s time (11) and that, therefore, could not be presented and produced in order to be assessed and pondered in the decision.
However, inside the factual matter established as proved in the minutes, there is no fact capable of constituting ground for the review or reopening of the investigation
http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/Annulment_request.htm
But the investigation was re opened...can you explain how it was possible as it was archived under 277/1
-
I seem to have more answers than you do my friend.
The McCann's lawyers seemed to have a problem with the reviewing and reopening of the investigation too. They appear to be arguing that only brand new information which wasn't in the existing files could be used to reopen the investigation. Not only that, the new information had to invalidate the grounds invoked by the Public Ministry in the filing order.
As I understand it, the grounds invoked (277/1) were that sufficient evidence had been gathered to show "that the arguido did not practice it in any way"
So what new information did the PJ discover or receive which changed that? I suppose only time will tell.
Article 277 - Archiving of the investigation
1 - The Public Ministry shall, by dispatch, close the investigation, as soon as it has gathered sufficient evidence that the crime was not confirmed, that the arguido did not practice it in any way or that the procedure is legally inadmissible
Article 279 - Reopening of the investigation
1. Once the period referred to in the previous article has expired, the investigation may be reopened only if new evidence appears to invalidate the grounds invoked by the Public Ministry in the filing order.
http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/Annulment_request.htm
According to the Policia Judiciaria they conducted a review of the material gathered by the archived investigation;
That reanalysis task, which took place during the last two and a half years, helped identify new evidence
http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/Nigel/id466.htm
According to the McCann's lawyers;
the invalidation of the grounds invoked by the Public Ministry's office in the filing order, made under the provisions of article 277-1 of the CPP, can only be based on new facts or elements of evidence unknown by the Public Ministry at the investigation’s time (11) and that, therefore, could not be presented and produced in order to be assessed and pondered in the decision.
However, inside the factual matter established as proved in the minutes, there is no fact capable of constituting ground for the review or reopening of the investigation
http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/Annulment_request.htm
... and yet ... the fact remains that the Portuguese authorities reopened Madeleine's case in 2013.
-
The gentleman has yet to respond to this in post #1473
"Precisely how do you believe the McCann's right to a presumption of innocence has been denied or infringed?"
we have already been through all this and disagree so I dont see the point in going through it again...
-
... and yet ... the fact remains that the Portuguese authorities reopened Madeleine's case in 2013.
thanks Brietta...
-
... and yet ... the fact remains that the Portuguese authorities reopened Madeleine's case in 2013.
If the McCann's lawyers are correct, the Public Ministry may find themselves having to justify the grounds they quoted for the archiving and reopening of the case. It may be them and not the Supreme Court who are being accused of breaching the human rights of the McCanns.
-
perhaps you are not following the debate...this is a very important point and has not yet been explained...gunit says the case could not be opened...carana says it could...as it actually was i would appreciate gunits explanation
Read further up, Davel.
G-Unit or Slarti then later provided the SC reasoning. It could have been opened under the initial one but SC decided that it ought to have been archived under 277/2.
What I can't find for the moment is this "memo for the media" - to see if that is what is was actually opened under, as opposed to what the SC decided it should have been 3 years after the fact.
-
Read further up, Davel.
G-Unit or Slarti then later provided the SC reasoning. It could have been opened under 177/1, but SC decided that it ought to have been archived under 277/2. P
What I can't find for the moment is this "memo for the media" - to see if that is what is was actually opened under, as opposed to what the SC decided it should have been 3 years after the fact.
So it could be re-opened even if archived under 277/1....I was under the impression the judges said it couldnt
-
If the McCann's lawyers are correct, the Public Ministry may find themselves having to justify the grounds they quoted for the archiving and reopening of the case. It may be them and not the Supreme Court who are being accused of breaching the human rights of the McCanns.
It will be interesting to have sight of the basis of the complaint the McCann lawyers have raised on their behalf with the ECHR.
It will be interesting to see how the ECHR will deal with the complaint.
Just as sceptics appeared to have a vested interest in Madeleine's case not being reopened and properly investigated ... they appear to be in some denial that the McCanns would ...
(a) present an appeal to the ECHR or that
(b) there were grounds for such a case to be heard by the ECHR.
Time will tell if there will be any opportunity for informed debate on this issue. Let's just wait and see, shall we?
-
Read further up, Davel.
G-Unit or Slarti then later provided the SC reasoning. It could have been opened under the initial one but SC decided that it ought to have been archived under 277/2.
What I can't find for the moment is this "memo for the media" - to see if that is what is was actually opened under, as opposed to what the SC decided it should have been 3 years after the fact.
hat reanalysis task, which took place during the last two and a half years, helped identify new evidence, which by imposing further investigation, meet the requirements set by article 279º no 1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for the reopening of the investigation.
http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/Nigel/id466.htm
Article 279/1 is quoted in my post.
-
hat reanalysis task, which took place during the last two and a half years, helped identify new evidence, which by imposing further investigation, meet the requirements set by article 279º no 1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for the reopening of the investigation.
http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/Nigel/id466.htm
Article 279/1 is quoted in my post.
Thanks, I'll have a read. I couldn't remember all the articles offhand.
Yes, it would have been opened under 279/1 as /2 is a recourse to a superior if the MP is messing about (which presumably didn't happen, so it's irrelevant).
-
hat reanalysis task, which took place during the last two and a half years, helped identify new evidence, which by imposing further investigation, meet the requirements set by article 279º no 1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for the reopening of the investigation.
http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/Nigel/id466.htm
Article 279/1 is quoted in my post.
G-Unit, that memo doesn't make any reference to whether the number of the archiving article had changed or not...
-
It will be interesting to have sight of the basis of the complaint the McCann lawyers have raised on their behalf with the ECHR.
It will be interesting to see how the ECHR will deal with the complaint.
Just as sceptics appeared to have a vested interest in Madeleine's case not being reopened and properly investigated ... they appear to be in some denial that the McCanns would ...
(a) present an appeal to the ECHR or that
(b) there were grounds for such a case to be heard by the ECHR.
Time will tell if there will be any opportunity for informed debate on this issue. Let's just wait and see, shall we?
In my opinion a lot of information can be gathered by reading the process which gave rise to the application. I don't know about 'sceptics' but it appears that the McCann's lawyers saw the archiving dispatch as equal to an acquittal, a point rebutted by the SC judges;
This is why it was judged in the ruling that it would not seem acceptable to consider that the order should be treated as a demonstration of acquittal.
http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/STJ_21_03_2017_Rejected.htm
The McCann's lawyers were unhappy with the reopening of the Portuguese investigation because they saw it as equal to an acquittal by a court. I for one thought it was a good idea.
-
G-Unit, that memo doesn't make any reference to whether the number of the archiving article had changed or not...
As far as I know the Public Ministry have made no comment on the Article quoted in the archiving dispatch. It wasn't even questioned by the SC until 2017, so wouldn't be of interest in 2013. They did what they did and are now in the position of possibly having to justify their actions at some point.
-
From the SC rejection thing again, snipped
The fact that the aforementioned “memorandum for the media”, published by the Attorney General office on the same day as the filing order, informed that the investigation could be reopened “if new evidence arose that could lead to serious, pertinent and consequential proceedings”, precisely points out that the order was issued pursuant to article 277-2 of the CPP.
In fact, if the investigation had been closed according to the terms of the first paragraph of the same article, it could not be reopened (cf. CPP, reviewed, 2016, 2nd ed., by Henriques Gaspar, Santos Cabral, Maia Costa, Oliveira Mendes, Pereira Madeira and Henriques da Graça, pp.929, 932-3.
Nope, it's still not making sense to me... and I'm trying lol
I don't have access to the book they cite, and they haven't made it clear why it couldn't have been reopened at all if it had remained archived under 277/1.
The "Memo" thing doesn't make any mention of the archiving article, so I'm still none the wiser.
-
In my opinion a lot of information can be gathered by reading the process which gave rise to the application. I don't know about 'sceptics' but it appears that the McCann's lawyers saw the archiving dispatch as equal to an acquittal, a point rebutted by the SC judges;
This is why it was judged in the ruling that it would not seem acceptable to consider that the order should be treated as a demonstration of acquittal.
http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/STJ_21_03_2017_Rejected.htm
The McCann's lawyers were unhappy with the reopening of the Portuguese investigation because they saw it as equal to an acquittal by a court. I for one thought it was a good idea.
"UNhappy"? Or did you mean happy?
Yes, they no doubt saw it as an acquittal, but I accept the point that it wasn't a full res judicata. However, since then, the PJ had conducted a review starting in 2011, presumably with the blessing of the MP, and the case was formally reopened in October 2013, with Pedro do Carmo clearing stating that the McCanns aren't suspects. Full stop."
The SC was ruling 3 years after the fact, in a civil case, on a legal summary of a criminal one, with no clear explanation for their assertion.
-
In my opinion a lot of information can be gathered by reading the process which gave rise to the application. I don't know about 'sceptics' but it appears that the McCann's lawyers saw the archiving dispatch as equal to an acquittal, a point rebutted by the SC judges;
This is why it was judged in the ruling that it would not seem acceptable to consider that the order should be treated as a demonstration of acquittal.
http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/STJ_21_03_2017_Rejected.htm
The McCann's lawyers were unhappy with the reopening of the Portuguese investigation because they saw it as equal to an acquittal by a court. I for one thought it was a good idea.
I do not understand the following from your post: "The McCann's lawyers were unhappy with the reopening of the Portuguese investigation because they saw it as equal to an acquittal by a court. I for one thought it was a good idea."
Please explain.
-
As far as I know the Public Ministry have made no comment on the Article quoted in the archiving dispatch. It wasn't even questioned by the SC until 2017, so wouldn't be of interest in 2013. They did what they did and are now in the position of possibly having to justify their actions at some point.
Possibly. Or the SC might.
Intriguingly clear as mud, IMO.
-
From the SC rejection thing again, snipped
The fact that the aforementioned “memorandum for the media”, published by the Attorney General office on the same day as the filing order, informed that the investigation could be reopened “if new evidence arose that could lead to serious, pertinent and consequential proceedings”, precisely points out that the order was issued pursuant to article 277-2 of the CPP.
In fact, if the investigation had been closed according to the terms of the first paragraph of the same article, it could not be reopened (cf. CPP, reviewed, 2016, 2nd ed., by Henriques Gaspar, Santos Cabral, Maia Costa, Oliveira Mendes, Pereira Madeira and Henriques da Graça, pp.929, 932-3.
Nope, it's still not making sense to me... and I'm trying lol
I don't have access to the book they cite, and they haven't made it clear why it couldn't have been reopened at all if it had remained archived under 277/1.
The "Memo" thing doesn't make any mention of the archiving article, so I'm still none the wiser.
It's certainly not simple lol. If 277/1 is equal to being acquitted by the courts, as Duarte argued (res judicatia), there may have been strict conditions on the type of new evidence used to reopen the case. I know there are in English law and the Director of Public Prosecutions has to give permission.
https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/retrial-serious-offences
-
I do not understand the following from your post: "The McCann's lawyers were unhappy with the reopening of the Portuguese investigation because they saw it as equal to an acquittal by a court. I for one thought it was a good idea."
Please explain.
I assume you class me among the 'sceptics' you mentioned. I was pleased that the Portuguese investigation was reopened.
The McCann's lawyers weren't pleased. I will explain why but it will be my opinion and I accept it may be incorrect.
1. The archiving dispatch used 277/1, saying that the investigation had found enough evidence to rule out any involvement by the arguidos.
2. Once the deadline passed this dispatch became res judicata; a judgement similar in this case to an acquittal.
3. No-one's lawyers would be pleased if the investigation was reopened after their clients had been acquitted. Especially when the evidence required for the reopening had to contradict the reasons given for the acquittal (see 1)
-
Possibly. Or the SC might.
Intriguingly clear as mud, IMO.
Possibly, but I would be more inclined to think the SC knew Portuguese law better than the prosecutor did. They are the highest judges in the land, he is a lawyer.
-
It's certainly not simple lol. If 277/1 is equal to being acquitted by the courts, as Duarte argued (res judicatia), there may have been strict conditions on the type of new evidence used to reopen the case. I know there are in English law and the Director of Public Prosecutions has to give permission.
https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/retrial-serious-offences
Another fault in the reasoning if the Sc IMO is...
Even if the McCanns had been acquitted in a full trial by the courts that would be not guilty.... and not proof of innocence..
So would amaral still have been free to write his book on how they got away with it
-
something else you dont seem to have an answer for.......the case was archived under article 271/1.....yet was reopened.....how is that possible given your understanding
You missed the bit where the SC said the reference to a article for closing was a minor item and what was said in the judgement was the important bit.
-
My undertanding is that:
Both points concern the non-feasibility of laying charges.
- 277/1 is the equivalent of a pseudo res judicata, without the hassle of a trial, but possibly without the liability of the double-jeopardy rule (haven't rummaged through the CPP to see if that exists in PT or not) if ever new evidence compelling evidence against the arguidos suddenly turned up.
- 277/2 is the equivalent of a pseudo version of the French "non-lieu" or the Scottish "not proven", again without the hassle of a trial.
The only two potential "smoking guns", IMO, were the dogs - which yielded nothing apart from some unexplained alerts and the "key" DNA results which the Public Prosecutor deemed "innocuous", confirmed by the head of the INML.
- Despite the initial flurry of excitement over Martin Smith's sudden doubt, once he'd calmed down, in context it was just a doubt that he felt he ought to communicate. So that fizzled out.
- Then there was this reconstruction idea (a year later) that never took place and which the SC latched onto. If it had been deemed crucial, the T7 + 1 could have slapped with arguido status and have been compelled to return. In the end, it appears no less crucial than Gerry's banks statements over the previous 6 months that the Home Office requested more justification for on the grounds of proportionality. None was forthcoming and it got dropped.
So, even reading the totality, I don't understand how the SC could come to the conclusion that 277/1 wasn't the appropriate choice.
-
LOL G-Unit, I hit submit before reading your post. :)
-
Public Prosecutor reopens inquiry into Maddie case
October 24, 2013 at 13:04
The Public Prosecutor's Office announced on Thursday the reopening of the inquiry into the disappearance of the English child Madeleine McCann. The reopening of the investigation follows a proposal from the PJ and given the "presentation of new elements".
The case is reopened after a team of investigators from PJ do Porto have re-examined the disappearance of the British girl with a fine comb.
It is recalled that the disappearance in 2007 was filed in July 2008 by the Portuguese Public Ministry.
The team that returned to analyze the case is from the Regional Section of Investigation and Criminal Prevention of the PJ of Porto.
It is a brigade with experience in cases of disappearance. One example of success was that of a young woman from Lamego, Carina Ferreira, whose body was found after a month of searching a ravine for a motorway.
This Thursday, a note from the Attorney General's Office (PGR) said that the MP ordered the reopening of the investigation into the disappearance of the child Madeleine McCann, according to the criminal procedural law that "the investigation can only be reopened if new evidence that invalidates the grounds invoked by the MP in the filing order "of the case.
The PGR further clarifies that the reopening of the investigation follows a proposal from the PJ and given the "presentation of new evidence that justify the continuation of the investigation".
The new evidence provided by the PJ to the MP is not disclosed, and it is limited to the PGR that in the investigation, in Portimão, "the competent Criminal Investigation Judge was required to postpone access to the case for an objectively indispensable period to the conclusion of the investigation, because it is understood that the regime of secrecy of justice is required ".
On 4 October, officials at Scotland Yard reported in London that the PJ had already formed a new team to work on lines of investigation identified by the British police on the disappearance of the child.
Madeleine McCann disappeared a few days before she was four years old, on May 3, 2007, from the bedroom where she slept with the two twin brothers in an apartment in a tourist village in the Algarve, while her parents had dinner with a group of friends in a nearby restaurant .
Portugal was one of the 31 countries whose rogatory letter was sent with a request for assistance relating to elements that British police want to see clarified, relating to persons or telephone data.
Detective Chief Inspector Andy Redwood then said that British police are trying to discover the owners of the cell phones identified as having been in the area and height of the disappearance.
In June, British police announced the existence of "38 people of interest" who wanted to question, including several Portuguese. "It's people who were within a radius of the disappearance site and who there are reasons to be suspicious of. It takes a little more than circumstantial issues," Redwood explained.
The 12 Brits initially identified were joined by three others, who are already being investigated, but the inspector believes that "possibly will be eliminated" soon from the list.
Scotland Yard, working on the case a year ago, is confident he has found relevant "new information," based on the 40,000 documents and clues collected by police in Portugal, UK and eight different private detectives.
https://www.jn.pt/nacional/dossiers/o-caso-maddie-mccann/ultimas/interior/ministerio-publico-reabre-inquerito-sobre-caso-maddie-3494730.html
-
You missed the bit where the SC said the reference to a article for closing was a minor item and what was said in the judgement was the important bit.
The appellants alluded to the “ostensible contradiction of grounds” because the ruling held that the closure of the criminal proceedings was determined since it had not been possible for the Public Ministry to obtain sufficient evidence of the commission of crimes by the appellants, whereas the filing order states that it occurred "because there were no indications that the appellants had committed any crime, in accordance with the provisions of article 277-1 of the CPP". First of all, let us say that the nullity pleaded consists in contradiction between the grounds and the decision and not between the grounds. In any case, it will always be said that the alleged contradiction does not exist because, in our view, although the filing order refers to the provisions of article 277-1 (note that the point 15 of the proved factual matter makes no reference to that article), what is pertinent is the content of the order and not a quoted legal provision.
http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/STJ_21_03_2017_Rejected.htm (http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/STJ_21_03_2017_Rejected.htm)
-
It's certainly not simple lol. If 277/1 is equal to being acquitted by the courts, as Duarte argued (res judicatia), there may have been strict conditions on the type of new evidence used to reopen the case. I know there are in English law and the Director of Public Prosecutions has to give permission.
https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/retrial-serious-offences
The SC described it as "close to res judicata". Evidence is basically anything that isn't forbidden in PT law. "New" is somewhat relative in this case. It wasn't as if every potential lead had been thoroughly followed up. F
or example, someone known to have been, or potentially was, in the vicinity gives a half-page statement saying after work he went home, doesn't remember what he did, and came back for work the next day (I'm paraphrasing as there are several of that nature) could hardly be classified as having been ruled out without further corroboration.
And, yes, there was supposedly new potential evidence from the private detectives' work. How much of that was deemed credible, relevant and pertinent, or whatever the phrase is, we might never know. The e-fits might have been deemed to have had greater value than non-missing pink blankets, or an obsession with fridges. IMO.
The assaults on young girls remains a mystery. If ever they were investigated and are in the not-accessible files, no one appears to have been arrested over them so far. There's absolutely no concrete evidence about what really happened to Joana, and she disappeared not far away as well.
Enough to be going on with, I would have thought. PT quietly did their own review over 2 years, prior to taking the decision to reopen it. The UK presumably shared some of the work their end during their own review process.
-
Public Prosecutor reopens inquiry into Maddie case
October 24, 2013 at 13:04
The Public Prosecutor's Office announced on Thursday the reopening of the inquiry into the disappearance of the English child Madeleine McCann. The reopening of the investigation follows a proposal from the PJ and given the "presentation of new elements".
The case is reopened after a team of investigators from PJ do Porto have re-examined the disappearance of the British girl with a fine comb.
It is recalled that the disappearance in 2007 was filed in July 2008 by the Portuguese Public Ministry.
The team that returned to analyze the case is from the Regional Section of Investigation and Criminal Prevention of the PJ of Porto.
It is a brigade with experience in cases of disappearance. One example of success was that of a young woman from Lamego, Carina Ferreira, whose body was found after a month of searching a ravine for a motorway.
This Thursday, a note from the Attorney General's Office (PGR) said that the MP ordered the reopening of the investigation into the disappearance of the child Madeleine McCann, according to the criminal procedural law that "the investigation can only be reopened if new evidence that invalidates the grounds invoked by the MP in the filing order "of the case.
The PGR further clarifies that the reopening of the investigation follows a proposal from the PJ and given the "presentation of new evidence that justify the continuation of the investigation".
The new evidence provided by the PJ to the MP is not disclosed, and it is limited to the PGR that in the investigation, in Portimão, "the competent Criminal Investigation Judge was required to postpone access to the case for an objectively indispensable period to the conclusion of the investigation, because it is understood that the regime of secrecy of justice is required ".
On 4 October, officials at Scotland Yard reported in London that the PJ had already formed a new team to work on lines of investigation identified by the British police on the disappearance of the child.
Madeleine McCann disappeared a few days before she was four years old, on May 3, 2007, from the bedroom where she slept with the two twin brothers in an apartment in a tourist village in the Algarve, while her parents had dinner with a group of friends in a nearby restaurant .
Portugal was one of the 31 countries whose rogatory letter was sent with a request for assistance relating to elements that British police want to see clarified, relating to persons or telephone data.
Detective Chief Inspector Andy Redwood then said that British police are trying to discover the owners of the cell phones identified as having been in the area and height of the disappearance.
In June, British police announced the existence of "38 people of interest" who wanted to question, including several Portuguese. "It's people who were within a radius of the disappearance site and who there are reasons to be suspicious of. It takes a little more than circumstantial issues," Redwood explained.
The 12 Brits initially identified were joined by three others, who are already being investigated, but the inspector believes that "possibly will be eliminated" soon from the list.
Scotland Yard, working on the case a year ago, is confident he has found relevant "new information," based on the 40,000 documents and clues collected by police in Portugal, UK and eight different private detectives.
https://www.jn.pt/nacional/dossiers/o-caso-maddie-mccann/ultimas/interior/ministerio-publico-reabre-inquerito-sobre-caso-maddie-3494730.html
Good find, Brietta.
That's 277/1.
So what's all this about that it couldn't have been reopened under that sub-point? It was, unless the reporter invented it and coincidentally hit upon the wrong sub-point.
-
I assume you class me among the 'sceptics' you mentioned. I was pleased that the Portuguese investigation was reopened.
The McCann's lawyers weren't pleased. I will explain why but it will be my opinion and I accept it may be incorrect.
1. The archiving dispatch used 277/1, saying that the investigation had found enough evidence to rule out any involvement by the arguidos.
2. Once the deadline passed this dispatch became res judicata; a judgement similar in this case to an acquittal.
3. No-one's lawyers would be pleased if the investigation was reopened after their clients had been acquitted. Especially when the evidence required for the reopening had to contradict the reasons given for the acquittal (see 1)
I think your opinion is entirely wrong.
I do believe that the McCann lawyers would be 100% behind their clients in their long drawn out and hard fought battle to have Madeleine's case re-investigated and their success in having achieved that aim successfully.
-
we have already been through all this and disagree so I dont see the point in going through it again...
Every time I ask that particular question you fail dismally to answer it.
-
Good find, Brietta.
That's 277/1.
So what's all this about that it couldn't have been reopened under that sub-point? It was, unless the reporter invented it and coincidentally hit upon the correct sub-point.
It is self evident it was "reopened".
We know it was not in the light of new evidence [point (m) in Judge Emilias ruling] coupled with
Pedro do Carmo's statement there was no new evidence [see earlier posts by Angelo and me]
So why was it reopened?
-
Every time I ask that particular question you fail dismally to answer it.
IMO.... The Portuguese system seems to be more a presumption of guilt than innocence... As the McCann's seem to be regularly told they have not proved their innocence
-
Good find, Brietta.
That's 277/1.
So what's all this about that it couldn't have been reopened under that sub-point? It was, unless the reporter invented it and coincidentally hit upon the correct sub-point.
I've just found this, Carana.
Snip
It was this work of reanalysis, during two and a half years, adds the same communiqué of the PJ, which "allowed to know new evidence that, by imposing the continuation of the investigation, fulfill the requirements established by article 279 nº 1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for the reopening of the investigation ".
Ler mais em: https://www.cmjornal.pt/cm-ao-minuto/detalhe/ministerio-publico-reabre-inquerito-no-caso-maddie
-
IMO.... The Portuguese system seems to be more a presumption of guilt than innocence... As the McCann's seem to be regularly told they have not proved their innocence
That is because you fail to understand what The Presumption of Innocence is about. See CPP Article 32.
-
I assume you class me among the 'sceptics' you mentioned. I was pleased that the Portuguese investigation was reopened.
The McCann's lawyers weren't pleased. I will explain why but it will be my opinion and I accept it may be incorrect.
1. The archiving dispatch used 277/1, saying that the investigation had found enough evidence to rule out any involvement by the arguidos.
2. Once the deadline passed this dispatch became res judicata; a judgement similar in this case to an acquittal.
3. No-one's lawyers would be pleased if the investigation was reopened after their clients had been acquitted. Especially when the evidence required for the reopening had to contradict the reasons given for the acquittal (see 1)
Ok, I think I see what you mean, but I don't see it that way.
The McCanns had been pleading with the UK to get a proper review done, which they eventually agreed to, and they opened their own investigative process. Somewhere towards the end of that review, the McCanns and the T7 were declared not to be suspects.
The PT side decided to have a review as well and clearly found grounds to reopen their initial investigation, also stating that the McCanns were not suspects. They could easily have said that they refused to discuss it, but, unusually Pedro do Carmo made a statement to confirm that the McCanns weren't suspect on their side either.
Some article or other said that the McCanns were invited to a meeting with the Porto PJ, presumably to be formally informed of this news. While this UK-PJ liaision was being pursued, the Met had said that the McCanns were being kept up to date. I would find it difficult to imagine that they weren't told informally that the PJ had reviewed and discarded their involvement. IFF that's the case, I can't see why they would have been unhappy about it.
-
The SC described it as "close to res judicata". Evidence is basically anything that isn't forbidden in PT law. "New" is somewhat relative in this case. It wasn't as if every potential lead had been thoroughly followed up. F
or example, someone known to have been, or potentially was, in the vicinity gives a half-page statement saying after work he went home, doesn't remember what he did, and came back for work the next day (I'm paraphrasing as there are several of that nature) could hardly be classified as having been ruled out without further corroboration.
And, yes, there was supposedly new potential evidence from the private detectives' work. How much of that was deemed credible, relevant and pertinent, or whatever the phrase is, we might never know. The e-fits might have been deemed to have had greater value than non-missing pink blankets, or an obsession with fridges. IMO.
The assaults on young girls remains a mystery. If ever they were investigated and are in the not-accessible files, no one appears to have been arrested over them so far. There's absolutely no concrete evidence about what really happened to Joana, and she disappeared not far away as well.
Enough to be going on with, I would have thought. PT quietly did their own review over 2 years, prior to taking the decision to reopen it. The UK presumably shared some of the work their end during their own review process.
I hope that they are looking into The Cipriano Case as well. Who knows? there might be something in that, another disappeared child.
-
It is self evident it was "reopened".
We know it was not in the light of new evidence [point (m) in Judge Emilias ruling] coupled with
Pedro do Carmo's statement there was no new evidence [see earlier posts by Angelo and me]
So why was it reopened?
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=8465.msg469793#msg469793
-
That is because you fail to understand what The Presumption of Innocence is about. See CPP Article 32.
Which version?
-
Another fault in the reasoning if the Sc IMO is...
Even if the McCanns had been acquitted in a full trial by the courts that would be not guilty.... and not proof of innocence..
So would amaral still have been free to write his book on how they got away with it
Any trial would have taken years. The filing for the civil one was in 2009, wasn't it? How long did that go on for?
-
Any trial would have taken years. The filing for the civil one was in 2009, wasn't it? How long did that go on for?
Opinion not fact.
-
That is because you fail to understand what The Presumption of Innocence is about. See CPP Article 32.
Link please or English translation of " CPP Article 32" to get an understanding of your point please.
-
It will be interesting to have sight of the basis of the complaint the McCann lawyers have raised on their behalf with the ECHR.
It will be interesting to see how the ECHR will deal with the complaint.
Just as sceptics appeared to have a vested interest in Madeleine's case not being reopened and properly investigated ... they appear to be in some denial that the McCanns would ...
(a) present an appeal to the ECHR or that
(b) there were grounds for such a case to be heard by the ECHR.
Time will tell if there will be any opportunity for informed debate on this issue. Let's just wait and see, shall we?
Actually, I was also somewhat sceptical about potential grounds as the focus of the Convention itself doesn't seem to easily lend itself to this type of case, so... I just dropped further reading on it.
I find the issue of the SC appeal and rejection that G-Unit raised quite intriguing, although without a lot of further reading, I'm still not sure whether it would be admissible or not.
-
Opinion not fact.
The a quo murder trial of two defendants in the Ciprianos was over in 3 days with 40 witness statements and no concrete evidence. However, the final verdict by the SC was many years later.
-
I hope that they are looking into The Cipriano Case as well. Who knows? there might be something in that, another disappeared child.
Sometimes an investigation into a more recent case can lead to leads in a cold one. Sadly, I'm not sure she even counts as a cold one, but never say never. ;)
-
My undertanding is that:
Both points concern the non-feasibility of laying charges.
- 277/1 is the equivalent of a pseudo res judicata, without the hassle of a trial, but possibly without the liability of the double-jeopardy rule (haven't rummaged through the CPP to see if that exists in PT or not) if ever new evidence compelling evidence against the arguidos suddenly turned up.
- 277/2 is the equivalent of a pseudo version of the French "non-lieu" or the Scottish "not proven", again without the hassle of a trial.
The only two potential "smoking guns", IMO, were the dogs - which yielded nothing apart from some unexplained alerts and the "key" DNA results which the Public Prosecutor deemed "innocuous", confirmed by the head of the INML.
- Despite the initial flurry of excitement over Martin Smith's sudden doubt, once he'd calmed down, in context it was just a doubt that he felt he ought to communicate. So that fizzled out.
- Then there was this reconstruction idea (a year later) that never took place and which the SC latched onto. If it had been deemed crucial, the T7 + 1 could have slapped with arguido status and have been compelled to return. In the end, it appears no less crucial than Gerry's banks statements over the previous 6 months that the Home Office requested more justification for on the grounds of proportionality. None was forthcoming and it got dropped.
So, even reading the totality, I don't understand how the SC could come to the conclusion that 277/1 wasn't the appropriate choice.
1. The investigation had enough evidence to say 'the McCann's weren't involved'.
2. The investigation had enough evidence to charge them.
277/1 required that number 1 was true.
The judges pointed out that the archiving dispatch doesn't say that number 1 was true;
it does not appear anywhere in the order, that the collected evidence was sufficient to confirm that no crime was committed or that the then arguidos (here appellants) did not commit it in any sort of way (cf. quoted article 277-1).
http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/STJ_21_03_2017_Rejected.htm
-
The a quo murder trial of two defendants in the Ciprianos was over in 3 days with 40 witness statements and no concrete evidence. However, the final verdict by the SC was many years later.
Please use IMO or make it clear it is a thought.
-
I've just found this, Carana.
Snip
It was this work of reanalysis, during two and a half years, adds the same communiqué of the PJ, which "allowed to know new evidence that, by imposing the continuation of the investigation, fulfill the requirements established by article 279 nº 1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for the reopening of the investigation ".
Ler mais em: https://www.cmjornal.pt/cm-ao-minuto/detalhe/ministerio-publico-reabre-inquerito-no-caso-maddie
Thanks, but that's the PT version of what G-Unit posted earlier as an English translation.
Here's my understanding. Happy to be corrected, I'm just trying to work it out.
279 is the Article relating to reopening an investigation.
279/1 is the "new" evidence one.
279/2 is a mechanism to appeal higher if the prosecutor refuses or delays it.
As, presumably 279/2 is irrelevant in this case, it would have been reopened under 279/1.
Where it gets a bit confusing...
277 is the article concerning archival.
Two potentailly relevant sub-points.
277 /1 (the no-evidence one)
277/2 (the insufficient evidence one).
In the legal summary, the Public Prosecutor archived it under 277 /1 (the no-evidence one).
The SC (in 2017) rejected the appeal on the grounds that the PP was wrong: it should have been archived under 277/2 (insufficient evidence)... and went on to assert that it couldn't have been reopened under 277/1, with a reference to p.9xx in some tome), but with no explanation or cite for mere mortals without access to it.
(Unless the media were all quoting the Attorney General's press release from the wrong hymn-sheet back in 2013, it was indeed opened under 277/1 (no evidence) )
As a result, that was apparently justification to uphold Amaral's right to freedom of expression as "insufficient evidence" left the door open for him to express his opinions / interpretation and presumably recuperate the fruit of his royalties.
277/1 (no evidence) on the other hand is the speed-dial version of a trial coming to court and being dismissed on the first day.
As the archival is considered as "close to res judicata", but not quite, the question then becomes how the pseudo-equivalent of an acquittal / dismissal for lack of grounds may affect the upholding of his rights to accuse them of criminal activity, both at the time, now and in the future.
However, that is what the Supreme Court of the land ruled.
It could, of course, turn out that the SC were quite right, but so far, it's not clear to me.
NB: I amended my previous post as it should have read "wrong" button.
-
Please use IMO or make it clear it is a thought.
It's not a thought or opinion. It's fact. I posted it a few days ago, with cites to trial dates and the number of witnesses.
-
It's not a thought or opinion. It's fact. I posted it a few days ago, with cites to trial dates and the number of witnesses.
It was the original statement "Any trial would have taken years" that I had issues with. To me that was an opinion not a fact.
-
The SC described it as "close to res judicata". Evidence is basically anything that isn't forbidden in PT law. "New" is somewhat relative in this case. It wasn't as if every potential lead had been thoroughly followed up. F
or example, someone known to have been, or potentially was, in the vicinity gives a half-page statement saying after work he went home, doesn't remember what he did, and came back for work the next day (I'm paraphrasing as there are several of that nature) could hardly be classified as having been ruled out without further corroboration.
And, yes, there was supposedly new potential evidence from the private detectives' work. How much of that was deemed credible, relevant and pertinent, or whatever the phrase is, we might never know. The e-fits might have been deemed to have had greater value than non-missing pink blankets, or an obsession with fridges. IMO.
The assaults on young girls remains a mystery. If ever they were investigated and are in the not-accessible files, no one appears to have been arrested over them so far. There's absolutely no concrete evidence about what really happened to Joana, and she disappeared not far away as well.
Enough to be going on with, I would have thought. PT quietly did their own review over 2 years, prior to taking the decision to reopen it. The UK presumably shared some of the work their end during their own review process.
The Article used in the archiving dispatch , it seems, had no influence on the judge's ruling anyway. They discussed it only because the lawyers were using it to try to bring the presumption of innocence into the damages trial;
whatever the grounds for the closure of the investigation ......we would always consider that the public criticism and the public scrutiny of the functioning of justice were not impeded.
That is to say, we would always conclude that the presumption of innocence principle would not be pertinent for the decision on the issue that we had to resolve.
http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/STJ_21_03_2017_Rejected.htm
I can't speculate as to what the 'new evidence' was because I've got no idea.
-
The Article used in the archiving dispatch , it seems, had no influence on the judge's ruling anyway. They discussed it only because the lawyers were using it to try to bring the presumption of innocence into the damages trial;
whatever the grounds for the closure of the investigation ......we would always consider that the public criticism and the public scrutiny of the functioning of justice were not impeded.
That is to say, we would always conclude that the presumption of innocence principle would not be pertinent for the decision on the issue that we had to resolve.
http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/STJ_21_03_2017_Rejected.htm
I can't speculate as to what the 'new evidence' was because I've got no idea.
so they felt the fact that th Mccanns had the right to be presumed innocent was not important?....very strange
-
so they felt the fact that th Mccanns had the right to be presumed innocent was not important?....very strange
Is that your deduction or are you trying to ask a question?
-
Ok, I think I see what you mean, but I don't see it that way.
The McCanns had been pleading with the UK to get a proper review done, which they eventually agreed to, and they opened their own investigative process. Somewhere towards the end of that review, the McCanns and the T7 were declared not to be suspects.
The PT side decided to have a review as well and clearly found grounds to reopen their initial investigation, also stating that the McCanns were not suspects. They could easily have said that they refused to discuss it, but, unusually Pedro do Carmo made a statement to confirm that the McCanns weren't suspect on their side either.
Some article or other said that the McCanns were invited to a meeting with the Porto PJ, presumably to be formally informed of this news. While this UK-PJ liaision was being pursued, the Met had said that the McCanns were being kept up to date. I would find it difficult to imagine that they weren't told informally that the PJ had reviewed and discarded their involvement. IFF that's the case, I can't see why they would have been unhappy about it.
The McCanns certainly wanted a review of the Portuguese evidence, but I have seen nothing to suggest that they wanted the Portuguese to do it.
Why did the PJ speak to the McCanns after speaking to Rowley et al?
in meeting with Gerry and Kate McCann, and the lawyers of the couple, the PJ asked for "absolute silence" about the investigation.
http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/Nigel/id466.htm
Why would the PJ tell them informally or formally that the PJ had discarded their involvement? The archiving dispatch had, allegedly, already done that by using 277/1.
-
so they felt the fact that th Mccanns had the right to be presumed innocent was not important?....very strange
Not relevant to their judgement, not unimportant.
-
The Article used in the archiving dispatch , it seems, had no influence on the judge's ruling anyway. They discussed it only because the lawyers were using it to try to bring the presumption of innocence into the damages trial;
whatever the grounds for the closure of the investigation ......we would always consider that the public criticism and the public scrutiny of the functioning of justice were not impeded.
That is to say, we would always conclude that the presumption of innocence principle would not be pertinent for the decision on the issue that we had to resolve.
http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/STJ_21_03_2017_Rejected.htm
I can't speculate as to what the 'new evidence' was because I've got no idea.
Ok.
But I'm still perplexed at their assertion that it couldn't have been opened under the 277/1 decision, when it certainly seems that it was. Did they check? Did the AG get it wrong?
If it was indeed reopened under 277/1 - "no evidence" / equivalent of a dismissal for lack of grounds, then why wouldn't that affect the superiority of Amaral's rights of theirs?
I'm aware that "presumption of innocence" is usually associated with rights to a fair trial, which was no longer the case when his book hit the shelves of booksellers nationwide, preceded by the usual marketing promo, as it had been archived just 3 days previously.
However, a few days ago, I noticed this from the ECHR library and posted a link to it, but I doubt anyone noticed it.
Section starting on p. 80 of the pdf (p. 78 of the doc).
Article 6 §2: presumption of innocence
https://www.echr.coe.int/LibraryDocs/Vitkauskas2012_EN.pdf
I don't know quite know whether this case would fit into this wider spectrum of cases considered or not. Even if it doesn't, it might have justified an application, IMO.
-
Thanks, but that's the PT version of what G-Unit posted earlier as an English translation.
Here's my understanding. Happy to be corrected, I'm just trying to work it out.
279 is the Article relating to reopening an investigation.
279/1 is the "new" evidence one.
279/2 is a mechanism to appeal higher if the prosecutor refuses or delays it.
As, presumably 279/2 is irrelevant in this case, it would have been reopened under 279/1.
Where it gets a bit confusing...
277 is the article concerning archival.
Two potentailly relevant sub-points.
277 /1 (the no-evidence one)
277/2 (the insufficient evidence one).
In the legal summary, the Public Prosecutor archived it under 277 /1 (the no-evidence one).
The SC (in 2017) rejected the appeal on the grounds that the PP was wrong: it should have been archived under 277/2 (insufficient evidence)... and went on to assert that it couldn't have been reopened under 277/1, with a reference to p.9xx in some tome), but with no explanation or cite for mere mortals without access to it.
(Unless the media were all quoting the Attorney General's press release from the wrong hymn-sheet back in 2013, it was indeed opened under 277/1 (no evidence) )
As a result, that was apparently justification to uphold Amaral's right to freedom of expression as "insufficient evidence" left the door open for him to express his opinions / interpretation and presumably recuperate the fruit of his royalties.
277/1 (no evidence) on the other hand is the speed-dial version of a trial coming to court and being dismissed on the first day.
As the archival is considered as "close to res judicata", but not quite, the question then becomes how the pseudo-equivalent of an acquittal / dismissal for lack of grounds may affect the upholding of his rights to accuse them of criminal activity, both at the time, now and in the future.
However, that is what the Supreme Court of the land ruled.
It could, of course, turn out that the SC were quite right, but so far, it's not clear to me.
NB: I amended my previous post as it should have read "wrong" button.
277/1 doesn't require 'no evidence' it requires 'sufficient evidence'. In my opinion saying there's no evidence that the arguido committed a crime is not the same as saying there's sufficient evidence to show that the arguido committed no crime.
-
Ok.
But I'm still perplexed at their assertion that it couldn't have been opened under the 277/1 decision, when it certainly seems that it was. Did they check? Did the AG get it wrong?
If it was indeed reopened under 277/1 - "no evidence" / equivalent of a dismissal for lack of grounds, then why wouldn't that affect the superiority of Amaral's rights of theirs?
I'm aware that "presumption of innocence" is usually associated with rights to a fair trial, which was no longer the case when his book hit the shelves of booksellers nationwide, preceded by the usual marketing promo, as it had been archived just 3 days previously.
However, a few days ago, I noticed this from the ECHR library and posted a link to it, but I doubt anyone noticed it.
Section starting on p. 80 of the pdf (p. 78 of the doc).
Article 6 §2: presumption of innocence
https://www.echr.coe.int/LibraryDocs/Vitkauskas2012_EN.pdf
I don't know quite know whether this case would fit into this wider spectrum of cases considered or not. Even if it doesn't, it might have justified an application, IMO.
from Caranas link....
rticle 6 §2: presumption of innocence
This provision primarily disallows premature declarations of
guilt by any public official. Declarations of guilt may take the
form of: a statement to the press about a pending criminal
investigation (Allenet de Ribemont v. France, §§39-41); a procedural
decision within criminal or even non-criminal proceedings
(mutatis mutandis, Daktaras v. Lithuania, §§42-45); or
even of a particular security arrangement during the trial
(Samoilă and Cionca v. Romania, §§93-101, where the applicant
was shown to the public in prison garments during the bail
proceedings).
A “public official” need not be an already elected representative
or employee of the public authorities at the material time. The
notion may include persons of recognised public standing,
from having held a public position of importance in the past or
from running for elected office (Kouzmin v. Russia, §§59-69).
-
It was the original statement "Any trial would have taken years" that I had issues with. To me that was an opinion not a fact.
Can you think of any case in any civilised country that goes from being a suspect, to being arrested and charged, then preliminary court hearings, plus adequate legal preparation time, setting dates for and holding of an a quo trial, the lodging of an appeal, time to accept or reject and appeal, dates for an appeal hearing, time for a ruling, a counter-appeal to a supreme court, time for their acceptance or rejection, if accepted, the setting of dates, their final chinwag and ruling that would take less than years? lol
-
277/1 doesn't require 'no evidence' it requires 'sufficient evidence'. In my opinion saying there's no evidence that the arguido committed a crime is not the same as saying there's sufficient evidence to show that the arguido committed no crime.
That gets us back to the absence of evidence argument..and imo I supplied evidence to support it...absence of evidence is evidence of innocence
-
Not relevant to their judgement, not unimportant.
unimportant to therir judgement which means they have ignored the presumption of innocence
-
277/1 doesn't require 'no evidence' it requires 'sufficient evidence'. In my opinion saying there's no evidence that the arguido committed a crime is not the same as saying there's sufficient evidence to show that the arguido committed no crime.
Ok with that, it was just shorthand.
So, where I'd said (no evidence), it was shorthand for sufficient evidence that the arguido had committed no crime.
-
from Caranas link....
rticle 6 §2: presumption of innocence
This provision primarily disallows premature declarations of
guilt by any public official. Declarations of guilt may take the
form of: a statement to the press about a pending criminal
investigation (Allenet de Ribemont v. France, §§39-41); a procedural
decision within criminal or even non-criminal proceedings
(mutatis mutandis, Daktaras v. Lithuania, §§42-45); or
even of a particular security arrangement during the trial
(Samoilă and Cionca v. Romania, §§93-101, where the applicant
was shown to the public in prison garments during the bail
proceedings).
A “public official” need not be an already elected representative
or employee of the public authorities at the material time. The
notion may include persons of recognised public standing,
from having held a public position of importance in the past or
from running for elected office (Kouzmin v. Russia, §§59-69).
It's complicated though.
There wasn't a pending criminal investigation at the time: it had just been archived.
-
It's complicated though.
There wasn't a pending criminal investigation at the time: it had just been archived.
It is complicated...but if what amaral was saying was true...then there would be a pending criminal investigation...and if it wasnt true....then its defamation
-
@ G-Unit
Just thinking... I'm not sure that 277/1 could be the speed-dial version of an acquittal.
If a case goes to trial and is dismissed within hours for lack of grounds, wouldn't that also be a res judicata?
-
It is complicated...but if what amaral was saying was true...then there would be a pending criminal investigation...and if it wasnt true....then its defamation
Read the whole thing.
I'm not sure whether there are grounds or not, in there. I was simply surprised that cases taken into consideration went beyond what I'd originally assumed.
-
The McCanns certainly wanted a review of the Portuguese evidence, but I have seen nothing to suggest that they wanted the Portuguese to do it.
Why did the PJ speak to the McCanns after speaking to Rowley et al?
in meeting with Gerry and Kate McCann, and the lawyers of the couple, the PJ asked for "absolute silence" about the investigation.
http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/Nigel/id466.htm
Why would the PJ tell them informally or formally that the PJ had discarded their involvement? The archiving dispatch had, allegedly, already done that by using 277/1.
Indeed they could have had that archive re opened anytime. Interestingly enough they also asked LP for info they had on them- this was refused. And they instructed PI's to find out what the police had found out by 'illegally investigating' ...
-
Indeed they could have had that archive re opened anytime. Interestingly enough they also asked LP for info they had on them- this was refused. And they instructed PI's to find out what the police had found out by 'illegally investigating' ...
Without a professional review to justify potential avenues?
-
Without a professional review to justify potential avenues?
We only have the word of the McCanns and their supporters telling us they didn't look for Madeleine, almost but nearly and would have-tried to torture Kate and throw her in Jail, and never bothered to look at any other theory. So based on THAT.. I can't really say...
The parents were of no real help to the investigation as the PJ have mentioned they didn't believe the abduction due to the story Kate gave. I agree with them on that point.
-
277/1 doesn't require 'no evidence' it requires 'sufficient evidence'. In my opinion saying there's no evidence that the arguido committed a crime is not the same as saying there's sufficient evidence to show that the arguido committed no crime.
Agreed, 1 needs evidence of innocence. As the crime was unknown, logically there can be no evidence of innocence.
-
Agreed, 1 needs evidence of innocence. As the crime was unknown, logically there can be no evidence of innocence.
then how can the McCanns be expected to prove their innocence...as was expected by the archiving report...if the crime is unknown
-
then how can the McCanns be expected to prove their innocence...as was expected by the archiving report...if the crime is unknown
They were suspicious of the McCanns and their behaviour. they may still hold those suspicions but as it is only a theory, they refused to co operate fully. kate with her refusal to answer questions and the reconstitution...
-
They were suspicious of the McCanns and their behaviour. they may still hold those suspicions but as it is only a theory, they refused to co operate fully. kate with her refusal to answer questions and the reconstitution...
you have not addressed the question I raised
-
Ok.
But I'm still perplexed at their assertion that it couldn't have been opened under the 277/1 decision, when it certainly seems that it was. Did they check? Did the AG get it wrong?
If it was indeed reopened under 277/1 - "no evidence" / equivalent of a dismissal for lack of grounds, then why wouldn't that affect the superiority of Amaral's rights of theirs?
I'm aware that "presumption of innocence" is usually associated with rights to a fair trial, which was no longer the case when his book hit the shelves of booksellers nationwide, preceded by the usual marketing promo, as it had been archived just 3 days previously.
However, a few days ago, I noticed this from the ECHR library and posted a link to it, but I doubt anyone noticed it.
Section starting on p. 80 of the pdf (p. 78 of the doc).
Article 6 §2: presumption of innocence
https://www.echr.coe.int/LibraryDocs/Vitkauskas2012_EN.pdf
I don't know quite know whether this case would fit into this wider spectrum of cases considered or not. Even if it doesn't, it might have justified an application, IMO.
That looks like another mind-numbing read. I'll save it for later I think. Please note the prosecutor says 'no evidence' but 277/1 requires 'sufficient evidence'.
-
We only have the word of the McCanns and their supporters telling us they didn't look for Madeleine, almost but nearly and would have-tried to torture Kate and throw her in Jail, and never bothered to look at any other theory. So based on THAT.. I can't really say...
The parents were of no real help to the investigation as the PJ have mentioned they didn't believe the abduction due to the story Kate gave. I agree with them on that point.
They might never have had the Smith efits (whatever they're worth in reality) without the PIs' engaged on behalf of the Madeleine Fund. And perhaps other information, some of which might have been useful.
-
Ageyevy v. Russia
18 April 2013
In 2008 the applicants, a married couple, adopted two small children (a boy and a girl).
Following an incident in March 2009 in which the boy was badly burnt at home and had
to go to hospital for treatment, the authorities took the children into care as they
suspected abuse. The mother complained in particular that the Russian courts had failed
to protect her reputation in defamation proceedings she had instituted in respect of
media reports describing her alleged ill-treatment of her son.
The Court held that there had been a violation of Article 8 (right to respect for private
life) of the Convention on account of the Russian courts’ failure to protect the mother’s
right to reputation in the defamation proceedings against the media company concerned,
as it was not convinced that the reasons advanced by the courts regarding the protection
of the freedom of expression of the media company had outweighed the mother’s rights
to have her reputation and right to the presumption of innocence safeguarded. It was in
particular not evident that the domestic courts in the defamation proceedings had
attached any importance to the right to the presumption of innocence. Nor had they
examined closely whether the journalists had acted in good faith and had provided
reliable and precise information in accordance with the ethics of journalism. Moreover,
even though nothing in the case-file suggested that the journalists had not been acting
in good faith, they had obviously failed to take the necessary steps to report the incident
in an objective and rigorous manner, trying instead either to exaggerate or oversimplify
the underlying reality.
some interesting points there
this is a CIVIL case of defamation where the ECHR criticise the domestic court for not upholding the presumption of innocence...how interesting........The mccanns are entitled to the presumption of innocence which the SC denied them
I have posted this before and it states taht the domestic court did not attach any importance to the presumption of innocence...during the defamation proceedings...that looks pretty clear to me
-
Agreed, 1 needs evidence of innocence. As the crime was unknown, logically there can be no evidence of innocence.
Evidence of innocence? How could there be, unless they all had an alibi that they were 3000km away at the time?
They needed sufficient evidence to conclude that they weren't involved in whatever crime was committed against their daughter. Assuming there was no likelihood that she walked and wandered and fell down some huge hole and no one checking them that day noticed. From what I've read and been told, that seems somewhat unlikely.
-
Ageyevy v. Russia
18 April 2013
In 2008 the applicants, a married couple, adopted two small children (a boy and a girl).
Following an incident in March 2009 in which the boy was badly burnt at home and had
to go to hospital for treatment, the authorities took the children into care as they
suspected abuse. The mother complained in particular that the Russian courts had failed
to protect her reputation in defamation proceedings she had instituted in respect of
media reports describing her alleged ill-treatment of her son.
The Court held that there had been a violation of Article 8 (right to respect for private
life) of the Convention on account of the Russian courts’ failure to protect the mother’s
right to reputation in the defamation proceedings against the media company concerned,
as it was not convinced that the reasons advanced by the courts regarding the protection
of the freedom of expression of the media company had outweighed the mother’s rights
to have her reputation and right to the presumption of innocence safeguarded. It was in
particular not evident that the domestic courts in the defamation proceedings had
attached any importance to the right to the presumption of innocence. Nor had they
examined closely whether the journalists had acted in good faith and had provided
reliable and precise information in accordance with the ethics of journalism. Moreover,
even though nothing in the case-file suggested that the journalists had not been acting
in good faith, they had obviously failed to take the necessary steps to report the incident
in an objective and rigorous manner, trying instead either to exaggerate or oversimplify
the underlying reality.
some interesting points there
this is a CIVIL case of defamation where the ECHR criticise the domestic court for not upholding the presumption of innocence...how interesting........The mccanns are entitled to the presumption of innocence which the SC denied them
I have posted this before and it states taht the domestic court did not attach any importance to the presumption of innocence...during the defamation proceedings...that looks pretty clear to me
What's the broader context? Was there an ongoing criminal investigation at the time?
-
@ G-Unit
Just thinking... I'm not sure that 277/1 could be the speed-dial version of an acquittal.
If a case goes to trial and is dismissed within hours for lack of grounds, wouldn't that also be a res judicata?
In my opinion that's what Duarte was claiming;
Article 282 - Duration and effects of suspension
3 - If the arguido complies with the injunctions and rules of behaviour, the Public Ministry closes the processes that cannot be reopened.
Article 449 - Reasons and admissibility of the review
2 - For the purpose of the provisions of the preceding paragraph, the dispatch terminating the process shall be equated with the sentence (made res judicata).
http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/Annulment_request.htm
-
then how can the McCanns be expected to prove their innocence...as was expected by the archiving report...if the crime is unknown
Oh what a confused prosecutor. Why would he cast doubt on their innocence, then file under Article 277/1 which says he had enough evidence to rule them out?
-
In my opinion that's what Duarte was claiming;
Article 282 - Duration and effects of suspension
3 - If the arguido complies with the injunctions and rules of behaviour, the Public Ministry closes the processes that cannot be reopened.
Article 449 - Reasons and admissibility of the review
2 - For the purpose of the provisions of the preceding paragraph, the dispatch terminating the process shall be equated with the sentence (made res judicata).
http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/Annulment_request.htm
That needs to be read in context, as there as logical flow.
I'm looking at the August 2007 one, as it's the easiest to find on my computer. Deadlines and other changes may have been introduced, but the general logic will be the same. I'll rectify it if I ever discover which CPP version they're referring to.
282 - starting back with the reopening article:
Artigo 279.o
Reabertura do inquérito
1 — Esgotado o prazo a que se refere o artigo anterior, o inquérito só pode ser reaberto se surgirem novos elementos de prova que invalidem os fundamentos invocados pelo Ministério Público no despacho de arquivamento.
2 — Do despacho do Ministério Público que deferir ou recusar a reabertura do inquérito há reclamação para o superior hierárquico imediato.
Artigo 280.o
Arquivamento em caso de dispensa da pena
1 — Se o processo for por crime relativamente ao qual se encontre expressamente prevista na lei penal a possibilidade de dispensa da pena, o Ministério Público, com a concordância do juiz de instrução, pode decidir- se pelo arquivamento do processo, se se verificarem os pressupostos daquela dispensa.
2 — Se a acusação tiver sido já deduzida, pode o juiz de instrução, enquanto esta decorrer, arquivar o processo com a concordância do Ministério Público e do arguido, se se verificarem os pressupostos da dispensa da pena.
3 — A decisão de arquivamento, em conformidade com o disposto nos números anteriores, não é susceptível de impugnação.
Artigo 281.o
Suspensão provisória do processo
1 — Se o crime for punível com pena de prisão não superior a 5 anos ou com sanção diferente da prisão, o Ministério Público, oficiosamente ou a requerimento do arguido ou do assistente, determina, com a concordância do juiz de instrução, a suspensão do processo, mediante a imposição ao arguido de injunções e regras de conduta, sempre que se verificarem os seguintes pressupostos:
a) Concordância do arguido e do assistente;
b) Ausência de condenação anterior por crime da mesma natureza;
69
c) Ausência de aplicação anterior de suspensão provisória de processo por crime da mesma natureza;
d) Não haver lugar a medida de segurança de internamento;
e) Ausência de um grau de culpa elevado; e
f) Ser de prever que o cumprimento das injunções e regras de conduta responda suficientemente às exigências de prevenção que no caso se façam sentir.
2 — São oponíveis ao arguido, cumulativa ou separadamente, as seguintes injunções e regras de conduta:
a) Indemnizar o lesado;
b) Dar ao lesado satisfação moral adequada;
c) Entregar ao Estado ou a instituições privadas de solidariedade social certa quantia ou efectuar prestação de serviço de interesse público;
d) Residir em determinado lugar;
e) Frequentar certos programas ou actividades;
f) Não exercer determinadas profissões;
g) Não frequentar certos meios ou lugares;
h) Não residir em certos lugares ou regiões;
i) Não acompanhar, alojar ou receber certas pessoas;
j) Não frequentar certas associações ou participar em determinadas reuniões;
l) Não ter em seu poder determinados objectos capazes de facilitar a prática de outro crime;
m) Qualquer outro comportamento especialmente exigido pelo caso.
3 — Não são oponíveis injunções e regras de conduta que possam ofender a dignidade do arguido.
4 — Para apoio e vigilância do cumprimento das injunções e regras de conduta podem o juiz de instrução e o Ministério Público, consoante os casos, recorrer aos serviços de reinserção social, a órgãos de polícia criminal e às autoridades administrativas.
5 — A decisão de suspensão, em conformidade com o n.o 1, não é susceptível de impugnação.
6 — Em processos por crime de violência doméstica não agravado pelo resultado, o Ministério Público, mediante requerimento livre e esclarecido da vítima, determina a suspensão provisória do processo, com a concordância do juiz de instrução e do arguido, desde que se verifiquem os pressupostos das alíneas b) e c) do n.o 1.
7 — Em processos por crime contra a liberdade e autodeterminação sexual de menor não agravado pelo resultado, o Ministério Público, tendo em conta o interesse da vítima, determina a suspensão provisória do processo, com a concordância do juiz de instrução e do arguido, desde que se verifiquem os pressupostos das alíneas b) e c) do n.o 1.
Artigo 282.o
Duração e efeitos da suspensão
1 — A suspensão do processo pode ir até dois anos, com excepção do disposto no n.o 5.
2 — A prescrição não corre no decurso do prazo de suspensão do processo.
3 — Se o arguido cumprir as injunções e regras de conduta, o Ministério Público arquiva o processo, não podendo ser reaberto.
4 — O processo prossegue e as prestações feitas não podem ser repetidas:
a) Se o arguido não cumprir as injunções e regras de conduta; ou
b) Se, durante o prazo de suspensão do processo, o arguido cometer crime da mesma natureza pelo qual tenha a ser condenado.
5 — Nos casos previstos nos n.os 6 e 7 do artigo anterior, a duração da suspensão pode ir até 5 anos.
---
449 appears to be about a review once the sentence has reached the end of the judicial road.
449
CAPÍTULO II
Da revisão
Artigo 449.o
Fundamentos e admissibilidade da revisão
1 — A revisão de sentença transitada em julgado é admissível quando:
a) Uma outra sentenca transitada em julgado tiver considerado falsos meios de prova que tenham sido determinantes para a decisão;
b) Uma outra sentenca transitada em julgado tiver dado como provado crime cometido por juiz ou jurado e relacionado com o exercício da sua funcão no processo;
c) Os factos que servirem de fundamento à condenação forem inconciliáveis com os dados como provados noutra sentença e da oposição resultarem graves dúvidas sobre a justiça da condenacão;
d) Se descobrirem novos factos ou meios de prova que, de per si ou combinados com os que foram apreciados no processo, suscitem graves dúvidas sobre a justiça da condenação.
e) Se descobrir que serviram de fundamento à condenacão provas proibidas nos termos dos n.os 1 a 3 do artigo 126.o;
f) Seja declarada, pelo Tribunal Constitucional, a inconstitucionalidade com força obrigatória geral de norma de conteúdo menos favorável ao arguido que tenha servido de fundamento à condenacão;
g) Uma sentença vinculativa do Estado Português, proferida por uma instância internacional, for inconciliável com a condenação ou suscitar graves dúvidas sobre a sua justiça.
2 — Para o efeito do disposto no número anterior, à sentença é equiparado despacho que tiver posto fim ao processo.
3 — Com fundamento na alínea d) do n.o 1, não é admissível revisão com o único fim de corrigir a medida concreta da sanção aplicada.
4 — A revisão é admissível ainda que o procedimento se encontre extinto ou a pena prescrita ou cumprida.
-
That needs to be read in context, as there as logical flow.
I'm looking at the August 2007 one, as it's the easiest to find on my computer. Deadlines and other changes may have been introduced, but the general logic will be the same. I'll rectify it if I ever discover which CPP version they're referring to.
282 - starting back with the reopening article:
Artigo 279.o
Reabertura do inquérito
1 — Esgotado o prazo a que se refere o artigo anterior, o inquérito só pode ser reaberto se surgirem novos elementos de prova que invalidem os fundamentos invocados pelo Ministério Público no despacho de arquivamento.
2 — Do despacho do Ministério Público que deferir ou recusar a reabertura do inquérito há reclamação para o superior hierárquico imediato.
Artigo 280.o
Arquivamento em caso de dispensa da pena
1 — Se o processo for por crime relativamente ao qual se encontre expressamente prevista na lei penal a possibilidade de dispensa da pena, o Ministério Público, com a concordância do juiz de instrução, pode decidir- se pelo arquivamento do processo, se se verificarem os pressupostos daquela dispensa.
2 — Se a acusação tiver sido já deduzida, pode o juiz de instrução, enquanto esta decorrer, arquivar o processo com a concordância do Ministério Público e do arguido, se se verificarem os pressupostos da dispensa da pena.
3 — A decisão de arquivamento, em conformidade com o disposto nos números anteriores, não é susceptível de impugnação.
Artigo 281.o
Suspensão provisória do processo
1 — Se o crime for punível com pena de prisão não superior a 5 anos ou com sanção diferente da prisão, o Ministério Público, oficiosamente ou a requerimento do arguido ou do assistente, determina, com a concordância do juiz de instrução, a suspensão do processo, mediante a imposição ao arguido de injunções e regras de conduta, sempre que se verificarem os seguintes pressupostos:
a) Concordância do arguido e do assistente;
b) Ausência de condenação anterior por crime da mesma natureza;
69
c) Ausência de aplicação anterior de suspensão provisória de processo por crime da mesma natureza;
d) Não haver lugar a medida de segurança de internamento;
e) Ausência de um grau de culpa elevado; e
f) Ser de prever que o cumprimento das injunções e regras de conduta responda suficientemente às exigências de prevenção que no caso se façam sentir.
2 — São oponíveis ao arguido, cumulativa ou separadamente, as seguintes injunções e regras de conduta:
a) Indemnizar o lesado;
b) Dar ao lesado satisfação moral adequada;
c) Entregar ao Estado ou a instituições privadas de solidariedade social certa quantia ou efectuar prestação de serviço de interesse público;
d) Residir em determinado lugar;
e) Frequentar certos programas ou actividades;
f) Não exercer determinadas profissões;
g) Não frequentar certos meios ou lugares;
h) Não residir em certos lugares ou regiões;
i) Não acompanhar, alojar ou receber certas pessoas;
j) Não frequentar certas associações ou participar em determinadas reuniões;
l) Não ter em seu poder determinados objectos capazes de facilitar a prática de outro crime;
m) Qualquer outro comportamento especialmente exigido pelo caso.
3 — Não são oponíveis injunções e regras de conduta que possam ofender a dignidade do arguido.
4 — Para apoio e vigilância do cumprimento das injunções e regras de conduta podem o juiz de instrução e o Ministério Público, consoante os casos, recorrer aos serviços de reinserção social, a órgãos de polícia criminal e às autoridades administrativas.
5 — A decisão de suspensão, em conformidade com o n.o 1, não é susceptível de impugnação.
6 — Em processos por crime de violência doméstica não agravado pelo resultado, o Ministério Público, mediante requerimento livre e esclarecido da vítima, determina a suspensão provisória do processo, com a concordância do juiz de instrução e do arguido, desde que se verifiquem os pressupostos das alíneas b) e c) do n.o 1.
7 — Em processos por crime contra a liberdade e autodeterminação sexual de menor não agravado pelo resultado, o Ministério Público, tendo em conta o interesse da vítima, determina a suspensão provisória do processo, com a concordância do juiz de instrução e do arguido, desde que se verifiquem os pressupostos das alíneas b) e c) do n.o 1.
Artigo 282.o
Duração e efeitos da suspensão
1 — A suspensão do processo pode ir até dois anos, com excepção do disposto no n.o 5.
2 — A prescrição não corre no decurso do prazo de suspensão do processo.
3 — Se o arguido cumprir as injunções e regras de conduta, o Ministério Público arquiva o processo, não podendo ser reaberto.
4 — O processo prossegue e as prestações feitas não podem ser repetidas:
a) Se o arguido não cumprir as injunções e regras de conduta; ou
b) Se, durante o prazo de suspensão do processo, o arguido cometer crime da mesma natureza pelo qual tenha a ser condenado.
5 — Nos casos previstos nos n.os 6 e 7 do artigo anterior, a duração da suspensão pode ir até 5 anos.
---
449 appears to be about a review once the sentence has reached the end of the judicial road.
449
CAPÍTULO II
Da revisão
Artigo 449.o
Fundamentos e admissibilidade da revisão
1 — A revisão de sentença transitada em julgado é admissível quando:
a) Uma outra sentenca transitada em julgado tiver considerado falsos meios de prova que tenham sido determinantes para a decisão;
b) Uma outra sentenca transitada em julgado tiver dado como provado crime cometido por juiz ou jurado e relacionado com o exercício da sua funcão no processo;
c) Os factos que servirem de fundamento à condenação forem inconciliáveis com os dados como provados noutra sentença e da oposição resultarem graves dúvidas sobre a justiça da condenacão;
d) Se descobrirem novos factos ou meios de prova que, de per si ou combinados com os que foram apreciados no processo, suscitem graves dúvidas sobre a justiça da condenação.
e) Se descobrir que serviram de fundamento à condenacão provas proibidas nos termos dos n.os 1 a 3 do artigo 126.o;
f) Seja declarada, pelo Tribunal Constitucional, a inconstitucionalidade com força obrigatória geral de norma de conteúdo menos favorável ao arguido que tenha servido de fundamento à condenacão;
g) Uma sentença vinculativa do Estado Português, proferida por uma instância internacional, for inconciliável com a condenação ou suscitar graves dúvidas sobre a sua justiça.
2 — Para o efeito do disposto no número anterior, à sentença é equiparado despacho que tiver posto fim ao processo.
3 — Com fundamento na alínea d) do n.o 1, não é admissível revisão com o único fim de corrigir a medida concreta da sanção aplicada.
4 — A revisão é admissível ainda que o procedimento se encontre extinto ou a pena prescrita ou cumprida.
I'm afraid I don't understand Portuguese, can you translate please?
-
The appellants alluded to the “ostensible contradiction of grounds” because the ruling held that the closure of the criminal proceedings was determined since it had not been possible for the Public Ministry to obtain sufficient evidence of the commission of crimes by the appellants, whereas the filing order states that it occurred "because there were no indications that the appellants had committed any crime, in accordance with the provisions of article 277-1 of the CPP". First of all, let us say that the nullity pleaded consists in contradiction between the grounds and the decision and not between the grounds. In any case, it will always be said that the alleged contradiction does not exist because, in our view, although the filing order refers to the provisions of article 277-1 (note that the point 15 of the proved factual matter makes no reference to that article), what is pertinent is the content of the order and not a quoted legal provision.
-
That looks like another mind-numbing read. I'll save it for later I think. Please note the prosecutor says 'no evidence' but 277/1 requires 'sufficient evidence'.
Yes, sufficient evidence that they're not.
-
I'm afraid I don't understand Portuguese, can you translate please?
Nope. Which automatic translation would you like. On the rocks or neat?
-
Nope. Which automatic translation would you like. On the rocks or neat?
I thik a nice g & t would go down well after all the brain ache. Goodnight!
-
It's late. Without spending hours over it, I think I've got the gist, for what it's worth:
282 flows on from 281. 281 reads to me as if it's the conditions for a suspended sentence. 282 is about the effects and duration of such a suspension.
449 seems to be about an exceptional review if there are reasons to suspect a miscarriage of justice.
My best guess for tonight.
-
I thik a nice g & t would go down well after all the brain ache. Goodnight!
Sounds like a tempting idea. Night, night.
-
Thought for the pot...
From the SC rejection:
First of all it has to be said that the principle of the presumption of innocence (art. 32°-2 of the CRP, 11°-1 of the UDHR and 6°-2 of the European Convention on Human Rights) is a rule of treatment to be given to the arguido (formal suspect) throughout the judicial criminal process.
Accordingly, this principle can not be construed as a restriction on public discussion of potentially criminal facts, despite that public bodies should, in their communications, resort to the necessary reserve to avoid creating the conviction that the arguido is in fact guilty (Cf. Konstas vs Greece of 28/11/ 11 (n° 053466/071).
Ok.
But then, from "Protecting the right to a fair trial under the European Convention on Human Rights"
Article 6 §2: presumption of innocence
This provision primarily disallows premature declarations of guilt by any public official.
(...)
A “public official” need not be an already elected representative or employee of the public authorities at the material time. The notion may include persons of recognised public standing, from having held a public position of importance in the past or from running for elected office (Kouzmin v. Russia, §§59-69
https://www.echr.coe.int/LibraryDocs/Vitkauskas2012_EN.pdf
-
Next bit from the SC rejection:
Nevertheless, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) has decided that the principle of presumption of innocence does not apply to civil proceedings (mainly compensatory) subsequent to a criminal lawsuit, in order not to deprive the victim of their own right to accede to the court and be compensated (Cf. the rulings in Y vs Norvvay (56568/00) of 11/ 05/2003 and Diacendo vs Italy (124/04) of 05/07/2012).
Ok. I think I get the reasoning, but Madeleine was one of the plaintiffs, wasn't she?
-
"...subsequent to a criminal lawsuit..."
So, is it res judicata for the McCCanns or not?
If they are saying that it should have been filed under 277/2 "insufficient evidence", the implication is that there is some and that therefore they could become arguidos again. If that's the case, then it isn't neccessarily the end of the road, in theory.
So which is it?
-
If anyone feels inclined to dig out what these cases were about, it's a bit vague without further background.
Article 6 §2 applies to civil actions such as compensation claims by former criminal suspects or defendants as a result of discontinued proceedings (Lutz v. Germany, §§50-64), acquittal (Sekanina v. Austria, §§20-31) or civil or disciplinary proceedings, provided that those civil actions are a consequence of or concomitant with the prior criminal proceedings (O. v. Norway, §§33-41; contrast with Agosi v. the United Kingdom, §§64-67).
-
On the other hand,
Article 6 §2 does not entail a positive obligation on the state concerning statements of guilt made by private persons and the media. Issues in this area may, however, arise incidentally under Article 6 §1 when seen from certain angles (Hauschildt; Butkevičius, dec.; T. and V. v. the United Kingdom).47
So we're back to whether Amaral is considered to be a "former public official" / "person of recognised public standing, from having held a public position of importance in the past" or a "private person" or part of the media.
What's the situation when a former public official writes a book and stars in a documentary expounding his hypothesis? Which category does he fall into?
-
On the other hand,
Article 6 §2 does not entail a positive obligation on the state concerning statements of guilt made by private persons and the media. Issues in this area may, however, arise incidentally under Article 6 §1 when seen from certain angles (Hauschildt; Butkevičius, dec.; T. and V. v. the United Kingdom).47
So we're back to whether Amaral is considered to be a "former public official" / "person of recognised public standing, from having held a public position of importance in the past" or a "private person" or part of the media.
What's the situation when a former public official writes a book and stars in a documentary expounding his hypothesis? Which category does he fall into?
In my opinion he fits the bill as a "former public official" / "person of recognised public standing, from having held a public position of importance in the past"
-
If anyone feels inclined to dig out what these cases were about, it's a bit vague without further background.
Article 6 §2 applies to civil actions such as compensation claims by former criminal suspects or defendants as a result of discontinued proceedings (Lutz v. Germany, §§50-64), acquittal (Sekanina v. Austria, §§20-31) or civil or disciplinary proceedings, provided that those civil actions are a consequence of or concomitant with the prior criminal proceedings (O. v. Norway, §§33-41; contrast with Agosi v. the United Kingdom, §§64-67).
Lutz v Germany appears to be a claim for compensation for expenses incurred during a criminal trial for a motoring offence committed in a RTA. (1985)
Sekanina v Austria was a claim for compensation following lengthy detention & trial for murder in which the accused was found not guilty but was still under suspicion by the authorities.
http://swarb.co.uk/sekanina-v-austria-echr-25-aug-1993/
Neither of these seem to be relevant to the McCanns' claim for compensation relating to defamation in a book rather than a criminal trial.
-
Next bit from the SC rejection:
Nevertheless, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) has decided that the principle of presumption of innocence does not apply to civil proceedings (mainly compensatory) subsequent to a criminal lawsuit, in order not to deprive the victim of their own right to accede to the court and be compensated (Cf. the rulings in Y vs Norvvay (56568/00) of 11/ 05/2003 and Diacendo vs Italy (124/04) of 05/07/2012).
Ok. I think I get the reasoning, but Madeleine was one of the plaintiffs, wasn't she?
Madeleine's claim was rejected in the first judgement because they were unable to prove that the book etc.harmed the search for her. In my opinion any court fees and other costs after that ceased to be payable by The Fund. The case was then only about the McCanns suing Amaral for defaming them. Difficult to justify spending Fund money on that.
-
In my opinion he fits the bill as a "former public official" / "person of recognised public standing, from having held a public position of importance in the past"
That seems one of the more obvious choices.
-
In my opinion he fits the bill as a "former public official" / "person of recognised public standing, from having held a public position of importance in the past"
That's what the first judge used to find against him, but the Appeal Court dismissed it;
it is hardly understandable that an employee, even more a retired one, would have to keep said duties of secrecy and reserve, thus being limited in the exercise of his right to an opinion, concerning the interpretation of facts that were already made public by the judiciary authority, and widely debated
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=7153.0
-
That's what the first judge used to find against him, but the Appeal Court dismissed it;
it is hardly understandable that an employee, even more a retired one, would have to keep said duties of secrecy and reserve, thus being limited in the exercise of his right to an opinion, concerning the interpretation of facts that were already made public by the judiciary authority, and widely debated
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=7153.0
It seems the ECHR dont agree with that
-
Madeleine's claim was rejected in the first judgement because they were unable to prove that the book etc.harmed the search for her. In my opinion any court fees and other costs after that ceased to be payable by The Fund. The case was then only about the McCanns suing Amaral for defaming them. Difficult to justify spending Fund money on that.
Unless by doing so it resulted in a book that the McCanns viewed as harming the search for a their daughter being withdrawn and a large payment of compensation being made into the Fund set up to find her.
-
That's what the first judge used to find against him, but the Appeal Court dismissed it;
it is hardly understandable that an employee, even more a retired one, would have to keep said duties of secrecy and reserve, thus being limited in the exercise of his right to an opinion, concerning the interpretation of facts that were already made public by the judiciary authority, and widely debated
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=7153.0
The ECHR do not seem to agree with that IMO....caranas post 1623 (http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=8465.msg469895#msg469895) which I have already posted.
if I write seem...it is obvious it is not fact and is opinion
-
The ECHR do not seem to agree with that...
It would appear so...
-
Unless by doing so it resulted in a book that the McCanns viewed as harming the search for a their daughter being withdrawn and a large payment of compensation being made into the Fund set up to find her.
Gambling in hope of a return you mean?
-
Gambling in hope of a return you mean?
could you explain......
-
Gambling in hope of a return you mean?
Any legal action of the his nature is a gamble if you want to put it that way. Initially at least, it appeared to have paid off so clearly it wasn’t a completely absurd action to enter into.
-
Unless by doing so it resulted in a book that the McCanns viewed as harming the search for a their daughter being withdrawn and a large payment of compensation being made into the Fund set up to find her.
Why didn't they think this with other books that had been written.
Or could it be GA - was involved from day one.... in what they call the golden hours.
G A has always been there main target - because he was to near the truth imo
-
Why didn't they think this with other books that had been written.
Or could it be GA - was involved from day one.... in what they call the golden hours.
G A has always been there main target - because he was to near the truth imo
what other books?
if amaral has evidence thta proves anything it should be presented in court....none of his so called evidence stands up to scrutiny IMO
-
An interesting point from the proven facts;
21. The criminal inquiry was reopened due to the appearance of new evidence?
Not proved.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=5931.0
-
Why didn't they think this with other books that had been written.
Or could it be GA - was involved from day one.... in what they call the golden hours.
G A has always been there main target - because he was to near the truth imo
What other books? What truth?
-
Madeleine's claim was rejected in the first judgement because they were unable to prove that the book etc.harmed the search for her. In my opinion any court fees and other costs after that ceased to be payable by The Fund. The case was then only about the McCanns suing Amaral for defaming them. Difficult to justify spending Fund money on that.
If the money was going to go into the fund if they won, I think it fair enough the fund pay in the case they lost.
-
An interesting point from the proven facts;
21. The criminal inquiry was reopened due to the appearance of new evidence?
Not proved.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=5931.0
As the only basis for re-opening the investigation was the appearance of new evidence is the Portuguese court questioning the legality of the criminal inquiry?
-
what other books?
if amaral has evidence thta proves anything it should be presented in court....none of his so called evidence stands up to scrutiny IMO
I think we've moved beyond what Amaral wrote. He used the same evidence that the investigation used to make the McCanns arguidos. The evidence wasn't sufficient to take to court, but, like the McCanns he formed an opinion. The question to be answered was whether he should be allowed to express his opinion just as they had expressed theirs.
-
If the money was going to go into the fund if they won, I think it fair enough the fund pay in the case they lost.
If I offered to hand my winnings to the Fund should it pay for me to sue someone?
-
If I offered to hand my winnings to the Fund should it pay for me to sue someone?
Maybe if the winning and losing were related.
-
I think we've moved beyond what Amaral wrote. He used the same evidence that the investigation used to make the McCanns arguidos. The evidence wasn't sufficient to take to court, but, like the McCanns he formed an opinion. The question to be answered was whether he should be allowed to express his opinion just as they had expressed theirs.
It would be like an ex-copper in this country writing a book about X being a paedophile and being allowed to profit from a best sellng book about it because he was on the original investigation but booted off before it concluded that there was no credible evidence against the suspect, simply to give him his right to express an opinion.
-
What other books? What truth?
@)(++(*.try looking at R D Hall contribution to the case.
Was he ever sued - you could say what he has put out there is worse than G A imo
-
I think we've moved beyond what Amaral wrote. He used the same evidence that the investigation used to make the McCanns arguidos. The evidence wasn't sufficient to take to court, but, like the McCanns he formed an opinion. The question to be answered was whether he should be allowed to express his opinion just as they had expressed theirs.
Their opinion was not defamatory
-
It would be like an ex-copper in this country writing a book about X being a paedophile and being allowed to profit from a best sellng book about it because he was on the original investigation but booted off before it concluded that there was no credible evidence against the suspect, simply to give him his right to express an opinion.
This is where imo the argument is,the Portuguses laws (libel/damages) rightly or wrongly appear to to be at odds with the uk's,the Mccanns are hoping that ECHR will side with their (uk) side of the argument.
Given the book was written and published in Portugal under Portuguese laws upheld by the SC,who is the ECHR more likely to side with?
-
This is where imo the argument is,the Portuguses laws (libel/damages) rightly or wrongly appear to to be at odds with the uk's,the Mccanns are hoping that ECHR will side with their (uk) side of the argument.
Given the book was written and published in Portugal under Portuguese laws upheld by the SC,who is the ECHR more likely to side with?
The ECHR won't side with anyone... They will simply apply their own laws... Irrespective of what Portugal law, dictates
-
Their opinion was not defamatory
Neither was Amaral's.
-
Neither was Amaral's.
That has yet to be decided... And that's, the whole point
Until all litigation is, exhausted we, don't know for sure
-
Why didn't they think this with other books that had been written.
Or could it be GA - was involved from day one.... in what they call the golden hours.
G A has always been there main target - because he was to near the truth imo
The fact that, as the initial coordinator of the investigation, whatever he said might have added weight on the credibility scale than Joe Blogs for the average reader might have something to do with it.
-
As the only basis for re-opening the investigation was the appearance of new evidence is the Portuguese court questioning the legality of the criminal inquiry?
It wasn't possible to prove that the investigation was reopened because new evidence appeared. Possibly because the details weren't released. The matter of new evidence was raised again by the McCann's lawyers in the request for an annulment of the SC judgement.
However, inside the factual matter established as proved in the minutes, there is no fact capable of constituting ground for the review or reopening of the investigation in question,
http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/Annulment_request.htm
They seem to be saying that there was nothing to justify the review or the reopening within the existing evidence. The PJ review began, unannounced, in March 2011; before Operation Grange began.
With that objective, the National Director of the Judiciary Police, in March 2011, assigned to a team of investigators from the North Directorate a task to re-examine the whole wide range of information contained in the inquest, with the aim to identify information whose further understanding could be revealed useful and possible.
That reanalysis task, which took place during the last two and a half years, helped identify new evidence, which by imposing further investigation, meet the requirements set by article 279º no 1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for the reopening of the investigation.
http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/Nigel/id466.htm
That sounds like the review wasn't preceded by the discovery of new evidence to me, it sounds like a fishing expedition to me. Cases archived under 277/1 could only be reviewed or reopened if brand new evidence appeared which was not in the investigator's possession at the time of archiving.
-
That has yet to be decided... And that's, the whole point
Until all litigation is, exhausted we, don't know for sure
All litigation has been exhausted.
-
All litigation has been exhausted.
ECHR
-
All litigation has been exhausted.
can the euro court even overule a court verdict in another country?? i doubt it
-
The fact that, as the initial coordinator of the investigation, whatever he said might have added weight on the credibility scale than Joe Blogs for the average reader might have something to do with it.
That;s what the McCann's lawyers argued, but did they manage to prove it?
-
That;s what the McCann's lawyers argued, but did they manage to prove it?
To make a topical analogy, the ball was on the spot and they shot wide. Like some people here they IMO l assumed it was an open and shut case and failed to prove their case.
-
ECHR
Which deals with cases against States, not against individuals. The McCann's v Amaral litigation is over. How did you fail to notice that?
-
Which deals with cases against States, not against individuals. The McCann's v Amaral litigation is over. How did you fail to notice that?
the horse has bolted so to speak has it not? amaral sells his book in portual as he is allowed too and those who dont want to read it or cant read it because its in portugese dont have too also wasnt amarals book a open letter/book in response to kates book?
-
Which deals with cases against States, not against individuals. The McCann's v Amaral litigation is over. How did you fail to notice that?
The ECHR has the power to rule the book defamatory
-
The ECHR has the power to rule the book defamatory
No, the ECHR has the power that tell PT that it hasn’t got its balance right. Judging by your previous cites that may cost PT something less than 5k Euros.
-
The world is full of people who believe that they are right; I was raised by such a person. I never try to change the minds of such people because it's impossible. I just offer my alternative view with supporting evidence where I can and allow others to decide who is correct.
-
the horse has bolted so to speak has it not? amaral sells his book in portual as he is allowed too and those who dont want to read it or cant read it because its in portugese dont have too also wasnt amarals book a open letter/book in response to kates book?
G A book can be bought on amazon/ebay - in English.
-
the horse has bolted so to speak has it not? amaral sells his book in portual as he is allowed too and those who dont want to read it or cant read it because its in portugese dont have too also wasnt amarals book a open letter/book in response to kates book?
That would have been incredibly prescient of him...
-
That would have been incredibly prescient of him...
Exactly what I thought
-
No, the ECHR has the power that tell PT that it hasn’t got its balance right. Judging by your previous cites that may cost PT something less than 5k Euros.
From my previous quotes it seems the ECHR can say the book was, defamatory
-
The world is full of people who believe that they are right; I was raised by such a person. I never try to change the minds of such people because it's impossible. I just offer my alternative view with supporting evidence where I can and allow others to decide who is correct.
Hear,hear.
-
It wasn't possible to prove that the investigation was reopened because new evidence appeared. Possibly because the details weren't released. The matter of new evidence was raised again by the McCann's lawyers in the request for an annulment of the SC judgement.
However, inside the factual matter established as proved in the minutes, there is no fact capable of constituting ground for the review or reopening of the investigation in question,
http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/Annulment_request.htm
They seem to be saying that there was nothing to justify the review or the reopening within the existing evidence. The PJ review began, unannounced, in March 2011; before Operation Grange began.
With that objective, the National Director of the Judiciary Police, in March 2011, assigned to a team of investigators from the North Directorate a task to re-examine the whole wide range of information contained in the inquest, with the aim to identify information whose further understanding could be revealed useful and possible.
That reanalysis task, which took place during the last two and a half years, helped identify new evidence, which by imposing further investigation, meet the requirements set by article 279º no 1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for the reopening of the investigation.
http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/Nigel/id466.htm
That sounds like the review wasn't preceded by the discovery of new evidence to me, it sounds like a fishing expedition to me. Cases archived under 277/1 could only be reviewed or reopened if brand new evidence appeared which was not in the investigator's possession at the time of archiving.
Would potentially relevant information that had previously been inadequately examined and simply filed constitute "new" or not?
Were the assaults on children ever investigated? If so, I can find nothing to indicate any resolution of those cases. And if so, was any potential connection between those cases and Madeleine's disappearance investigated at the time?
Information on discrete crimes could be held (therefore not technically "new") in various files, possibly by different forces, but simply a lack of resources (in the broadest sense) might not have brought to light a potentially credible, but unexplored potential connection.
If that potential connection had then been spotted, would that be a "new" element warranting serious investigation, or would it not be new as the background information had already been received but was lying in a dusty file somewhere?
-
Would potentially relevant information that had previously been inadequately examined and simply filed constitute "new" or not?
Were the assaults on children ever investigated? If so, I can find nothing to indicate any resolution of those cases. And if so, was any potential connection between those cases and Madeleine's disappearance investigated at the time?
Information on discrete crimes could be held (therefore not technically "new") in various files, possibly by different forces, but simply a lack of resources (in the broadest sense) might not have brought to light a potentially credible, but unexplored potential connection.
If that potential connection had then been spotted, would that be a "new" element warranting serious investigation, or would it not be new as the background information had already been received but was lying in a dusty file somewhere?
Would it not remain ' inadequately examined ' until it had been reviewed? Bit chicken and eggish
-
The world is full of people who believe that they are right; I was raised by such a person. I never try to change the minds of such people because it's impossible. I just offer my alternative view with supporting evidence where I can and allow others to decide who is correct.
What you don't realise is this is exactly the way supporters see sceptics such as yourself...
-
Would potentially relevant information that had previously been inadequately examined and simply filed constitute "new" or not?
Were the assaults on children ever investigated? If so, I can find nothing to indicate any resolution of those cases. And if so, was any potential connection between those cases and Madeleine's disappearance investigated at the time?
Information on discrete crimes could be held (therefore not technically "new") in various files, possibly by different forces, but simply a lack of resources (in the broadest sense) might not have brought to light a potentially credible, but unexplored potential connection.
If that potential connection had then been spotted, would that be a "new" element warranting serious investigation, or would it not be new as the background information had already been received but was lying in a dusty file somewhere?
Not according to Duarte;
the invalidation of the grounds invoked by the Public Ministry's office in the filing order, made under the provisions of article 277-1 of the CPP, can only be based on new facts or elements of evidence unknown by the Public Ministry at the investigation’s time
http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/Annulment_request.htm
-
what i dont understand is crime books from police officers are written all the time theres about 20 books written about jon benet ramsey etc and lots of other books about other crimes about children why is a ex police officer writing a book about what he thinks about the mcann case so upsetting to supporters ??? i have 100s of books on my kindle written about crimes from all sorts of sources
as for the application to the echr were they not going to the euro court a year ago or more? i havent seen anything about it in the media since then it may have been rejected by now
-
I only suggest that critizing Amaral's book and theories which was the starter gun for all the subsequent legal action should be allowed.
-
I only suggest that critizing Amaral's book and theories which was the starter gun for all the subsequent legal action should be allowed.
Threads and topics are created to keep discussion within bounds. If we were to allow a trace back of causes then all discussions will go back to a point on 3rd May 2007. This topic is about McCanns vs PT at the ECHR.
-
A point of note everyone. Every post has a unique identifier or URL which is revealed once you click on the post header. For example, the URL for this post is http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=8465.msg470054#msg470054
Members occasionally refer back to posts by the post number but the difficulty arises when a thread has been edited sometimes altering the post count. Best to refer back to a specific post by its URL.
-
Threads and topics are created to keep discussion within bounds. If we were to allow a trace back of causes then all discussions will go back to a point on 3rd May 2007. This topic is about McCanns vs PT at the ECHR.
Who will decide whether the, SC made the right balance between the rights of the McCann's and the rights of amaral... In all the other cases quoted the ECHRwere concerned with the accuracy of the claims
-
Would it not remain ' inadequately examined ' until it had been reviewed? Bit chicken and eggish
Why? Undertaking a review doesn't equate to reopening a case.
If someone (police? PIs? Families of victims?) had presented a credible and reasoned case concerning a potentially viable lead, a letter or report may not have constituted new "evidence" as such, but quite possibly a serious indicator that hitherto evidence / intelligence / information hadn't been adequately examined at the time.
Is there any reason why PT shouldn't have decided to quiety start their own review? Would they have been unaware of the UK side's post-mortem? Would they have been unaware of the massive petition to at least get the UK to do a review?
-
Not according to Duarte;
the invalidation of the grounds invoked by the Public Ministry's office in the filing order, made under the provisions of article 277-1 of the CPP, can only be based on new facts or elements of evidence unknown by the Public Ministry at the investigation’s time
http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/Annulment_request.htm
If facts or evidence had been lurking in a supposedly unrelated file, would the Public Ministry have known about it?
-
What you don't realise is this is exactly the way supporters see sceptics such as yourself...
What have those labels got to do with anything? I respect a well presented, well supported argument regardless of the poster's stance on this case.
-
What have those labels got to do with anything? I respect a well presented, well supported argument regardless of the poster's stance on this case.
As, I hope, would any poster on here looking for the truth.
-
If facts or evidence had been lurking in a supposedly unrelated file, would the Public Ministry have known about it?
I would say if it was in their possession it's not new.
-
What have those labels got to do with anything? I respect a well presented, well supported argument regardless of the poster's stance on this case.
As I do... But I have seen precious little supported by evidence to suggest the parents are involved in any criminal activity
-
Next bit from the SC rejection:
Nevertheless, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) has decided that the principle of presumption of innocence does not apply to civil proceedings (mainly compensatory) subsequent to a criminal lawsuit, in order not to deprive the victim of their own right to accede to the court and be compensated (Cf. the rulings in Y vs Norvvay (56568/00) of 11/ 05/2003 and Diacendo vs Italy (124/04) of 05/07/2012).
Ok. I think I get the reasoning, but Madeleine was one of the plaintiffs, wasn't she?
Yes but her claim fell along with the claims of the other two children at The Court of First Instance.
-
In my opinion he fits the bill as a "former public official" / "person of recognised public standing, from having held a public position of importance in the past"
Neither the Court of appeal nor the Supreme Court seem to agree with that line of thought.
There is a bet to place.
The purse is laid on either the opinion of Judges wot have had plenty of college on the requisite laws or the opinion of an anonymous internet poster who manifestly is not fluent in Portuguese let alone Portuguese Legalese.
Mesdames et Messieurs! Faites vos jeux!.
-
Neither the Court of appeal nor the Supreme Court seem to agree with that line of thought.
There is a bet to place.
The purse is laid on either the opinion of Judges wot have had plenty of college on the requisite laws or the opinion of an anonymous internet poster who manifestly is not fluent in Portuguese let alone Portuguese Legalese.
Mesdames et Messieurs! Faites vos jeux!.
The SC are on record, as having made mistakes......perhaps this is one of them...
Professionals do not always get things right and it's valid to question their decision....
Let's look where this started... We have the opinion of the experienced detective who led the investigation... Or the opinion of an an anonymous internet poster.... Who understands the evidence better...
-
The SC are on record, as having made mistakes......perhaps this is one of them...
Professionals do not always get things right and it's valid to question their decision....
Let's look where this started... We have the opinion of the experienced detective who led the investigation... Or the opinion of an an anonymous internet poster.... Who understands the evidence better...
All very good but the question posed was "where are you going to place your bet".
-
As I do... But I have seen precious little supported by evidence to suggest the parents are involved in any criminal activity
Perhaps you can point to the 'sufficient evidence' which demonstrates that they didn't commit a crime, as per 277/1?
-
Perhaps you can point to the 'sufficient evidence' which demonstrates that they didn't commit a crime, as per 277/1?
I don't think they have to supply any evidence that they did not commit a crime... That's, a presumption of guilt... Not innocence
But is you look at the archiving report there is a list of reasons... Evidence. .as to why they may not have committed a crime
-
All very good but the question posed was "where are you going to place your bet".
That's an easy one... On a McCann victory
-
That's an easy one... On a McCann victory
I'm sure Maddie wouldn't agree.
-
I'm sure Maddie wouldn't agree.
I think you should see my post in the context it was made... I think the McCann's have very good chance at the ECHR
-
I don't think they have to supply any evidence that they did not commit a crime... That's, a presumption of guilt... Not innocence
But is you look at the archiving report there is a list of reasons... Evidence. .as to why they may not have committed a crime
If you re=read my post I didn't say 'they' (I assume you mean the McCanns?) had to supply any evidence. Read the requirements of 277/1.
-
If you re=read my post I didn't say 'they' (I assume you mean the McCanns?) had to supply any evidence. Read the requirements of 277/1.
Well who else is going to supply any evidence.... And what evidence would you expect... If Kate could supply evidence of an open window that would be important
-
I don't think they have to supply any evidence that they did not commit a crime... That's, a presumption of guilt... Not innocence
But is you look at the archiving report there is a list of reasons... Evidence. .as to why they may not have committed a crime
Only if they wanted it as 277/1...
-
Only if they wanted it as 277/1...
I don't see it's of any real importance now...
-
I don't see it's of any real importance now...
50 pages later!
-
50 pages later!
Because it has now been fully discussed
-
Because it has now been fully discussed
Could you summarise the outcome?
-
That's an easy one... On a McCann victory
That wasn't an option for the bet.
-
That wasn't an option for the bet.
Yes it was ...there are two options...the mccanns are sucesful...or not
-
That wasn't an option for the bet.
Explain it again please?
-
Well who else is going to supply any evidence.... And what evidence would you expect... If Kate could supply evidence of an open window that would be important
Nope, you still haven't got it. What does 277/1 say?
-
You claimed the judges, said the case couldn't be re-opened if it was archived under 277/1
-
I'm sure if Maddie is still alive she wouldn't agree with a lot on this firum... But you are, taking things off topic
I think you are letting your emotions cloud your reasoning. The McCanns had little thought for their daughter's human rights when they went out dining and drinking while she was left alone to cry and bowl. Do you not realise the European Court will take this into consideration when looking at what happened in Portugual?
-
I think you are letting your emotions cloud your reasoning. The McCanns had little thought for their daughter's human rights when they went out dining and drinking while she was left alone to cry and bowl. Do you not realise the European Court will take this into consideration when looking at what happened in Portugual?
The ECHR will not take that view into account... You and others make the mistake that supporters are emotionally involved... Total rubbish... I see far more emotion in your posts...
-
You claimed the judges, said the case couldn't be re-opened if it was archived under 277/1
They did.
-
They did.
Then they we're wrong because it was reopened
-
Then they we're wrong because it was reopened
Thereby affirming the judge's opinions that it was archived under Article 277/2.
-
Thereby affirming the judge's opinions that it was archived under Article 277/2.
That's not what the, archiving report says
-
That's not what the, archiving report says
Which was corrected by the SC, as they said, it was the words that mattered rather the the referenced article.
-
Which was corrected by the SC, as they said, it was he words that mattered rather the the referenced article.
corrected when..2017...so when the investigation was reopened it was still under 277/1....fact
so its not the article taht matters but the words...that doesnt sound very precise to me...the law needs to be precise
-
It was the words that mattered rather the the referenced article.
that sounds a pretty poor way to run a legal system imo,,,there are rules...but they can be ignored
-
that sounds a pretty poor way to run a legal system imo
There speaks a bureaucrat....
-
There speaks a bureaucrat....
its about having precise rules...not altering them as you go along
-
its about having precise rules...not altering them as you go along
So if you realise a mistake has been made do you a) see what the words say and adjust the article referenced or b) keep the article referenced and rewrite the judgement to match?
-
So if you realise a mistake has been made do you a) see what the words say and adjust the article referenced or b) keep the article referenced and rewrite the judgement to match?
Its interesting that you are saying a mistake has been made......by the archiving procedure...then by those who reopened the case...and no one noticed...doesnt sound very professional..imo...I wonder if other mistakes hve been made that no one noticed...does sound good good for the ECHR application
so from what you are saying it was quite reasonable for duarte to interpret the archiving in t way she did
-
Neither the Court of appeal nor the Supreme Court seem to agree with that line of thought.
There is a bet to place.
The purse is laid on either the opinion of Judges wot have had plenty of college on the requisite laws or the opinion of an anonymous internet poster who manifestly is not fluent in Portuguese let alone Portuguese Legalese.
Mesdames et Messieurs! Faites vos jeux!.
If you're referring to me in your reply, no attempts to decipher Portuguese needed concerning the definition of "public official". Hint: EN before .pdf
A “public official” need not be an already elected representative or employee of the public authorities at the material time. The notion may include persons of recognised public standing, from having held a public position of importance in the past or from running for elected office (Kouzmin v. Russia, §§59-69
So far, I can see how an application could be accepted for consideration, which is more than I thought a few weeks ago, but that's about it.
https://www.echr.coe.int/LibraryDocs/Vitkauskas2012_EN.pdf
-
If you're referring to me in your reply, no attempts to decipher Portuguese needed concerning the definition of "public official". Hint: EN before .pdf
A “public official” need not be an already elected representative or employee of the public authorities at the material time. The notion may include persons of recognised public standing, from having held a public position of importance in the past or from running for elected office (Kouzmin v. Russia, §§59-69
So far, I can see how an application could be accepted for consideration, which is more than I thought a few weeks ago, but that's about it.
https://www.echr.coe.int/LibraryDocs/Vitkauskas2012_EN.pdf
I'm not sure cases accepted are posted on the ECHR site as such...do you have any knowledge...cases not accepted are publicised so I think we can assume it has not been rejected
-
You claimed the judges, said the case couldn't be re-opened if it was archived under 277/1
No, hang on. Umpteen pages back, G-Unit was copying from a court document to the effect that the case couldn't have been reopened if archived under 277/1.
Yet, it seems that it was indeed reopened under archival 277/1.
It wasn't G-Unit "claiming" this from thin air.
-
No, hang on. Umpteen pages back, G-Unit was copying from a court document to the effect that the case couldn't have been reopened if archived under 277/1.
Yet, it seems that it was indeed reopened under archival 277/1.
It wasn't G-Unit "claiming" this from thin air.
you need to raed my post again...it says gunit posted the judges claimed the case could not be reopened...not gunit..im surprised you missed that...its in the quote you have just posted
im surrised you cannot see the significance...Duarte basing her argument on277/1.....and the SC replying...the AG got it wrong
-
If you're referring to me in your reply, no attempts to decipher Portuguese needed concerning the definition of "public official". Hint: EN before .pdf
A “public official” need not be an already elected representative or employee of the public authorities at the material time. The notion may include persons of recognised public standing, from having held a public position of importance in the past or from running for elected office (Kouzmin v. Russia, §§59-69
So far, I can see how an application could be accepted for consideration, which is more than I thought a few weeks ago, but that's about it.
https://www.echr.coe.int/LibraryDocs/Vitkauskas2012_EN.pdf
I am not 8(0(*
-
I'm not sure cases accepted are posted on the ECHR site as such...do you have any knowledge...cases not accepted are publicised so I think we can assume it has not been rejected
No, TBH I haven't really followed this aspect so far as I ddin't think it would even get accepted, based on the Convention itself.
-
No, TBH I haven't really followed this aspect so far as I ddin't think it would even get accepted, based on the Convention itself.
I'm sure that if it is accepted, we will see a statement from a 'source close to the family' announcing that.
-
I am not 8(0(*
'Course not. Perish the thought. 8(0(*
-
Guys and gals... this whole topic is hard enough to try to understand.
Any chance of getting back to it? ;)
-
The point I find interesting is Duarte based part of her case on 277/1... Then the SC...say.. 277/1 was a mistake... How fair is that
-
The point I find interesting is Duarte based part of her case on 277/1... Then the SC...say.. 277/1 was a mistake... How fair is that
It is an interesting point.
-
It is an interesting point.
An important point..
-
The point I find interesting is Duarte based part of her case on 277/1... Then the SC...say.. 277/1 was a mistake... How fair is that
Makes you wonder if she read the judgement.
-
Makes you wonder if she read the judgement.
It seems the AG didn't understand... If what the SC have said is correct... It's basically who in the Portuguese justice system is wrong... Then we have the fact that the case, was re-opened contrary to the law if the SC is to be believed
-
Hopefully the ECHR will sort this mess out
-
It seems the AG didn't understand... If what the SC have said is correct... It's basically who in the Portuguese justice system is wrong... Then we have the fact that the case, was re-opened contrary to the law if the SC is to be believed
The Public Prosecutor and his deputy signed it, not actually the AG.
-
The point I find interesting is Duarte based part of her case on 277/1... Then the SC...say.. 277/1 was a mistake... How fair is that
That was what I was interested in x pages back.
-
Makes you wonder if she read the judgement.
Oh! I am sure she did.
I hold Dra Duarte in quite high regard.
The clue is the way a solicitors invoice is constructed:-
To Taking Your Instructions........etc.
-
That was what I was interested in x pages back.
I can't find it now, but I remember reading a quote from Murat's lawyer about the archiving of the investigation. Asked if they were pleased his reply was they would wait and see under what conditions it was archived first. That remark makes more sense now. Obviously he would want 277/1 for his client. As the prosecutor mentioned no doubts about Murat, 277/1 was probably correct for him.
The question is, could a case be archived under two different Articles? Even if it could there would have been a huge fuss imo when people realised why the prosecutor had reached different conclusions about the arguidos. Just a thought.
-
I can't find it now, but I remember reading a quote from Murat's lawyer about the archiving of the investigation. Asked if they were pleased his reply was they would wait and see under what conditions it was archived first. That remark makes more sense now. Obviously he would want 277/1 for his client. As the prosecutor mentioned no doubts about Murat, 277/1 was probably correct for him.
The question is, could a case be archived under two different Articles? Even if it could there would have been a huge fuss imo when people realised why the prosecutor had reached different conclusions about the arguidos. Just a thought.
Was there no evidence or insufficient evidence that Murat had been involved in a crime against Madeleine? In any event, the defamation case he brought against CdM was (correctly) judged without reference to the veracity of the evidence contained in the PJ files against him & repeated by the press.
-
Was there no evidence or insufficient evidence that Murat had been involved in a crime against Madeleine? In any event, the defamation case he brought against CdM was (correctly) judged without reference to the veracity of the evidence contained in the PJ files against him & repeated by the press.
As were the the cases the McCanns brought against the Express.
-
As were the the cases the McCanns brought against the Express.
That case was not dealt with under Portuguese law.
-
As were the the cases the McCanns brought against the Express.
Papers paying damages to McCanns
Page last updated at 10:37 GMT, Wednesday, 19 March 2008
(http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/44502000/jpg/_44502187_express_star_203pa.jpg)
The McCanns will receive a public apology, read in open court
A newspaper group is paying £550,000 to the parents of Madeleine McCann after it settled a libel case over reports of her disappearance.
Express Newspapers' titles, including the Daily Express, Daily Star and Sunday Express, are also printing front-page apologies.
They say they were wrong to suggest the couple, of Rothley, Leicestershire, were responsible for Madeleine's death.
The McCanns say the money will go to the Find Madeleine campaign.
In a statement read out on behalf of the McCanns at the High Court on Wednesday, they said they were pleased that Express Newspapers had admitted the "utter falsity" of the numerous stories written about them over many months.
Their spokesman, Clarence Mitchell, added that the allegations had caused them "great distress".
'Wholehearted apology'
It is understood that the sum donated to the campaign doubles the amount left in the fund.
Madeleine disappeared, days before her fourth birthday, during a family holiday in the resort of Praia da Luz, in the Algarve, on 3 May last year.
Her parents, Kate and Gerry, have been named as suspects in the case by Portuguese police but have always denied any involvement.
The settlement was confirmed at a High Court hearing, although the amount of damages was not formally disclosed.
It came after Wednesday's editions of the Daily Express and Daily Star both carried front-page apologies under the headline, "Kate and Gerry McCann: Sorry".
The Express said it accepted that a "number of articles in the newspaper have suggested that the couple caused the death of their missing daughter Madeleine and then covered it up".
It also acknowledged there was "no evidence whatsoever" to support that theory.
The paper added that Mr and Mrs McCann are "completely innocent of any involvement in their daughter's disappearance".
A similarly worded statement appeared in the Daily Star.
The Star said it was making a "wholehearted apology to Kate and Gerry McCann for stories suggesting the couple were responsible for, or may be responsible for, the death of their daughter Madeleine and for covering it up".
Further apologies are expected in the publications' sister Sunday titles at the weekend.
The libel action related to more than 100 stories across the four titles, including 42 printed in the Daily Express.
All four titles are published by the Express Newspapers group, which has agreed to all the McCanns' requests. It is also paying all their costs.
A spokesman for the company said: "We have nothing to add to what will be said in court and in our titles."
The McCanns' lawyers said that some of the newspapers' articles were "grossly defamatory".
'Trust and credibility'
Richard Bilton, BBC News special correspondent, said one of the couple's representatives had said the response of the newspaper group was "much more responsible than they were perhaps initially with these articles".
Media commentator Roy Greenslade said that for two national newspapers to carry front-page apologies at the same time was "unprecedented".
"I think this is an amazing stand-down, U-turn, by the Express newspapers," he said.
"I think when people realise that more than 100 stories have been complained about as being grossly defamatory, it will annihilate the Express' readers sense of trust and credibility in their newspaper."
Media lawyer Paul Gilbert, from Finers Stephens Innocent, said the courts encourage early settlement of defamation cases.
"Clearly the Express' lawyers felt this was a case they should settle without a high-profile trial - which it would be - and as a result have saved considerable costs," he said.
"It certainly is a warning sign to newspapers in the future - if they're going to speculate, they've got to be very careful about what they speculate about."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7303801.stm
-
Papers paying damages to McCanns
Page last updated at 10:37 GMT, Wednesday, 19 March 2008
(http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/44502000/jpg/_44502187_express_star_203pa.jpg)
The McCanns will receive a public apology, read in open court
A newspaper group is paying £550,000 to the parents of Madeleine McCann after it settled a libel case over reports of her disappearance.
Express Newspapers' titles, including the Daily Express, Daily Star and Sunday Express, are also printing front-page apologies.
They say they were wrong to suggest the couple, of Rothley, Leicestershire, were responsible for Madeleine's death.
The McCanns say the money will go to the Find Madeleine campaign.
In a statement read out on behalf of the McCanns at the High Court on Wednesday, they said they were pleased that Express Newspapers had admitted the "utter falsity" of the numerous stories written about them over many months.
Their spokesman, Clarence Mitchell, added that the allegations had caused them "great distress".
'Wholehearted apology'
It is understood that the sum donated to the campaign doubles the amount left in the fund.
Madeleine disappeared, days before her fourth birthday, during a family holiday in the resort of Praia da Luz, in the Algarve, on 3 May last year.
Her parents, Kate and Gerry, have been named as suspects in the case by Portuguese police but have always denied any involvement.
The settlement was confirmed at a High Court hearing, although the amount of damages was not formally disclosed.
It came after Wednesday's editions of the Daily Express and Daily Star both carried front-page apologies under the headline, "Kate and Gerry McCann: Sorry".
The Express said it accepted that a "number of articles in the newspaper have suggested that the couple caused the death of their missing daughter Madeleine and then covered it up".
It also acknowledged there was "no evidence whatsoever" to support that theory.
The paper added that Mr and Mrs McCann are "completely innocent of any involvement in their daughter's disappearance".
A similarly worded statement appeared in the Daily Star.
The Star said it was making a "wholehearted apology to Kate and Gerry McCann for stories suggesting the couple were responsible for, or may be responsible for, the death of their daughter Madeleine and for covering it up".
Further apologies are expected in the publications' sister Sunday titles at the weekend.
The libel action related to more than 100 stories across the four titles, including 42 printed in the Daily Express.
All four titles are published by the Express Newspapers group, which has agreed to all the McCanns' requests. It is also paying all their costs.
A spokesman for the company said: "We have nothing to add to what will be said in court and in our titles."
The McCanns' lawyers said that some of the newspapers' articles were "grossly defamatory".
'Trust and credibility'
Richard Bilton, BBC News special correspondent, said one of the couple's representatives had said the response of the newspaper group was "much more responsible than they were perhaps initially with these articles".
Media commentator Roy Greenslade said that for two national newspapers to carry front-page apologies at the same time was "unprecedented".
"I think this is an amazing stand-down, U-turn, by the Express newspapers," he said.
"I think when people realise that more than 100 stories have been complained about as being grossly defamatory, it will annihilate the Express' readers sense of trust and credibility in their newspaper."
Media lawyer Paul Gilbert, from Finers Stephens Innocent, said the courts encourage early settlement of defamation cases.
"Clearly the Express' lawyers felt this was a case they should settle without a high-profile trial - which it would be - and as a result have saved considerable costs," he said.
"It certainly is a warning sign to newspapers in the future - if they're going to speculate, they've got to be very careful about what they speculate about."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7303801.stm
I wonder what would have happened if the case had lead to charges instead of being archived ?
-
I wonder what would have happened if the case had lead to charges instead of being archived ?
Probably the same as this.
https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2013/aug/25/lance-armstrong-settles-sunday-times
-
I wonder what would have happened if the case had lead to charges instead of being archived ?
Google J Archer pays back libel award.
-
Was there no evidence or insufficient evidence that Murat had been involved in a crime against Madeleine? In any event, the defamation case he brought against CdM was (correctly) judged without reference to the veracity of the evidence contained in the PJ files against him & repeated by the press.
I don't know because the prosecutor used the words 'there are no indications of having committed any crime' for all three arguidos. I don't know what is meant by indication in Portuguese. I know it's not evidence (evidencia) or proof (prova).
To fulfil the requirements of 277/1 it was necessary for the prosecutor to be satisfied that there was sufficient evidence that the arguidos didn't commit the crime. He doesn't say that.
-
I don't know because the prosecutor used the words 'there are no indications of having committed any crime' for all three arguidos. I don't know what is meant by indication in Portuguese. I know it's not evidence (evidencia) or proof (prova).
To fulfil the requirements of 277/1 it was necessary for the prosecutor to be satisfied that there was sufficient evidence that the arguidos didn't commit the crime. He doesn't say that.
Prosecutor... There are no indications they committed any crime
Pedro De Carmo... There is no evidence against the parents
Does that not suggest to you that the parents are not guilty
-
I don't know because the prosecutor used the words 'there are no indications of having committed any crime' for all three arguidos. I don't know what is meant by indication in Portuguese. I know it's not evidence (evidencia) or proof (prova).
To fulfil the requirements of 277/1 it was necessary for the prosecutor to be satisfied that there was sufficient evidence that the arguidos didn't commit the crime. He doesn't say that.
AsI remember in the archiving report the prosecutor gave a list of reasons, why the McCann's could not have committed the grime... This in my view is his evidence that the McCann's did not commit the crime
-
indício
indication n (plural: indications)
sign n
O paciente está mostrando indícios de melhora. The patient is showing signs of recovery.
clue n (plural: clues)
Se acharmos mais indícios, podemos resolver o mistério. If we find more clues, we can solve the mystery.
hint n
A economia está dando claros indícios de crescimento. The economy is giving clear hints of growth.
less common: evidence n
·
trace n
·
manifestation n
·
inkling n
·
glimpse n
Examples:
forte indício m—strong indication n
bom indício m—good indication n
·
good indicator n
indício suficiente m—sufficient indication n
https://www.linguee.com/english-portuguese/search?query=ind%C3%ADcio
-
indício
indication n (plural: indications)
sign n
O paciente está mostrando indícios de melhora. The patient is showing signs of recovery.
clue n (plural: clues)
Se acharmos mais indícios, podemos resolver o mistério. If we find more clues, we can solve the mystery.
hint n
A economia está dando claros indícios de crescimento. The economy is giving clear hints of growth.
less common: evidence n
·
trace n
·
manifestation n
·
inkling n
·
glimpse n
Examples:
forte indício m—strong indication n
bom indício m—good indication n
·
good indicator n
indício suficiente m—sufficient indication n
https://www.linguee.com/english-portuguese/search?query=ind%C3%ADcio
Thanks, Carana, very interesting. I was thinking about the fact that the crime wasn't identified. Is the prosecutor saying there were no indications they committed the crimes he listed? What if new information came in which proved that a completely different crime had been committed?
-
Thanks, Carana, very interesting. I was thinking about the fact that the crime wasn't identified. Is the prosecutor saying there were no indications they committed the crimes he listed? What if new information came in which proved that a completely different crime had been committed?
I would think everyone understands that if new evidence emerged the situation would change. .but 11 years and no evidence against the parents saysvit all.. Imo
-
I would think everyone understands that if new evidence emerged the situation would change. .but 11 years and no evidence against the parents saysvit all.. Imo
But there is evidence of a conspiracy to undermine the investigation.
-
I wonder what would have happened if the case had lead to charges instead of being archived ?
See Armstrong v Sunday Times
-
See Armstrong v Sunday Times
Thanks Alice
https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2013/aug/25/lance-armstrong-settles-sunday-times
-
But there is evidence of a conspiracy to undermine the investigation.
Possible but I wouldn't say proven.
-
Thanks, Carana, very interesting. I was thinking about the fact that the crime wasn't identified. Is the prosecutor saying there were no indications they committed the crimes he listed? What if new information came in which proved that a completely different crime had been committed?
Which crimes do you mean? He provided a wide range of possible crimes near the beginning, incuding various types of abduction, parental involvement, etc.
Later, aside from his doubts over the frequency of the checks (he seems to assume that it was Madeleine that Mrs Fenn had heard) and his consideration of the crime of abandonment, which he dismissed due to the absence of intent, he then goes to give his reasons for the "non involvement of the arguidos parents of Madeleine in any penally relevant action".
The non involvement of the arguidos parents of Madeleine in any penally relevant action seems to result from the objective circumstances of them not being inside the apartment when she disappeared, from the normal behaviour that they adopted until said disappearance and afterwards, as can be amply concluded from the witness statements, from the telephone communications analysis and also from the forensics' conclusions, namely the Reports from the FSS and from the National Institute for Legal Medicine.
To this can be added that, in reality, none of the indications that led to their constitution as arguidos was later confirmed or consolidated. If not, let us see: the information concerning a previous alert of the media before the polices was not confirmed, the traces that were marked by the dogs were not ratified in laboratory, and the initial indications from the above transcribed email, better clarified at a later date, ended up being revealed as innocuous.
Even if, hypothetically, one could admit that Gerald and Kate McCann might be responsible over the child's death, it would still have to be explained how, where through, when, with what means, with the help of whom and where to they freed themselves of her body within the restricted time frame that would have been available to them to do so. Their daily routine, until the 3rd of May, had been circumscribed to the narrow borders of the 'Ocean Club' resort and to the beach that lies next to it, unknowing the surrounding terrain and, apart from the English friends that were with them on holiday there, they had no known friends or contacts in Portugal.
All this bearing in mind that:
- Despite all of this, it was not possible to obtain any piece of evidence that would allow for a medium man, under the light of the criteria of logics, of normality and of the general rules of experience, to formulate any lucid, sensate, serious and honest conclusion about the circumstances under which the child was removed from the apartment (whether dead or alive, whether killed in a neglectful homicide or an intended homicide, whether the victim of a targeted abduction or an opportunistic abduction), nor even to produce a consistent prognosis about her destiny and inclusively - the most dramatic - to establish whether she is still alive or if she is dead, as seems more likely.
But therefore we do not possess any minimally solid and rigorous foundation in order to be able to state, with the safety that is requested, which was or were the exact and precise crime(s) that was or were practised on the person of the minor Madeleine McCann - apart from the supposed but dismissed crime of exposure or abandonment - or to hold anyone responsible over its authorship.
Finally, it should be underlined that this case, unfortunately, is not a police novel, an appropriate scenario for a "crime" that is tailored for the success of the investigative work of a Sherlock Holmes or a Hercule Poirot, guided by the illusion that the forces of law and justice always manage to re-establish the altered order, returning to society the peace and the tranquillity that were only accidentally disturbed.
The disappearance of Madeleine McCann is rather an implacable and intricate case of real life, which lies closer to the lucid narrative by Friedrich Duerrenmatt, - "The Pledge. Requiem for the police novel" - because reality and everyday life owe little or no obedience, most of the times, to logic.
Life's events do not conform to stereotyped novel-like schemes, it is rather the case that its outcome is often the product of chance or conditioned by accidental and unpredictable factors, and therefore, hard to envision.
If concrete evidence came to light of whichever crime - if any, envisaged or not - had befallen her, then that might that might shed more light on who may have been responsible.
-
indício
indication n (plural: indications)
sign n
O paciente está mostrando indícios de melhora. The patient is showing signs of recovery.
clue n (plural: clues)
Se acharmos mais indícios, podemos resolver o mistério. If we find more clues, we can solve the mystery.
hint n
A economia está dando claros indícios de crescimento. The economy is giving clear hints of growth.
less common: evidence n
·
trace n
·
manifestation n
·
inkling n
·
glimpse n
Examples:
forte indício m—strong indication n
bom indício m—good indication n
·
good indicator n
indício suficiente m—sufficient indication n
https://www.linguee.com/english-portuguese/search?query=ind%C3%ADcio
Ad I remember in the archiving despatch it says non of the indications used to make the McCann's arguidos.... That would show indications is used as a synonym for evidence
-
Ad I remember in the archiving despatch it says non of the indications used to make the McCann's arguidos.... That would show indications is used as a synonym for evidence
Double-checked: further down that page, it can be translated as evidence, but it doesn't give an example of its use in context and is less common.
I checked some of the more reputable sources for examples and it was usually translated as indication or sign.
I don't think translating it as evidence makes sense, as it appears to be of a lesser order than the usual words for evidence and proof, i.e. indication, then evidence, then proof.
less common: evidence n
·
trace n
·
manifestation n
·
inkling n
·
glimpse n
-
Double-checked: further down that page, it can be translated as evidence, but it doesn't give an example of its use in context and is less common.
I checked some of the more reputable sources for examples and it was usually translated as indication or sign.
I don't think translating it as evidence makes sense, as it appears to be of a lesser order than the usual words for evidence and proof, i.e. indication, then evidence, then proof.
less common: evidence n
·
trace n
·
manifestation n
·
inkling n
·
glimpse n
I think the way it way it was used in the, archiving report is a good indication that in that context it was meant to mean evidence
-
I think the way it way it was used in the, archiving report is a good indication that in that context it was meant to mean evidence
I don't think so as there's already a word for evidence in Portolegalese. Have a look for yourself through the examples further on taken from online translations. A slight caveat, some translations aren't professional, so it's worth checking the source. Europarl or Eurolex are reliable.
On the other hand, I've just found one instance of it used as meaning evidence.
E não consegui detectar nenhum indício de que a estabilização do Afeganistão é de alta prioridade para Washington.
And I've been unable to detect any evidence to the effect that the stabilisation of Afghanistan is a top priority for Washington.
Source: nato.int
However, looking into it, it seems to be the translation of an opinion piece by a native English-speaker, not a formal legal document.
So... I'm sticking with indication for the moment.
-
I don't think so as there's already a word for evidence in Portolegalese. Have a look for yourself through the examples further on taken from online translations. A slight caveat, some translations aren't professional, so it's worth checking the source. Europarl or Eurolex are reliable.
On the other hand, I've just found one instance of it used as meaning evidence.
E não consegui detectar nenhum indício de que a estabilização do Afeganistão é de alta prioridade para Washington.
And I've been unable to detect any evidence to the effect that the stabilisation of Afghanistan is a top priority for Washington.
Source: nato.int
However, looking into it, it seems to be the translation of an opinion piece by a native English-speaker, not a formal legal document.
So... I'm sticking with indication for the moment.
Evidence.... The available body of information which indicates whether a belief is true...
So indications are evidence... Imo
-
Evidence.... The available body of information which indicates whether a belief is true...
So indications are evidence... Imo
LOL This reminds me of someone else I frequently nit-pick with.
I disagree because there's a hierarchy, IMO, and indication is at the bottom of it. I understand it as a pointer, or some form of intelligence, that then leads to searching for evidence.
The legal summary goes into some depth how these indications led to various actions in order to try to find evidence. in the end, there was none of any relevance.
Perhaps someone would care to have a go at wading through the CPP to find instances of indícios versus evidência.
-
LOL This reminds me of someone else I frequently nit-pick with.
I disagree because there's a hierarchy, IMO, and indication is at the bottom of it. I understand it as a pointer, or some form of intelligence, that then leads to searching for evidence.
The legal summary goes into some depth how these indications led to various actions in order to try to find evidence. in the end, there was none of any relevance.
Perhaps someone would care to have a go at wading through the CPP to find instances of indícios versus evidência.
I think if you list the indications that Maddie, wad, abducted and the evidence.... They will be the same
It may be that the prosecutor regarded evidence as some thing that would, stand up in court... As opposed to indications that would not.... So the dog alerts would be indications... Not evidence
-
Which crimes do you mean? He provided a wide range of possible crimes near the beginning, incuding various types of abduction, parental involvement, etc.
Later, aside from his doubts over the frequency of the checks (he seems to assume that it was Madeleine that Mrs Fenn had heard) and his consideration of the crime of abandonment, which he dismissed due to the absence of intent, he then goes to give his reasons for the "non involvement of the arguidos parents of Madeleine in any penally relevant action".
The non involvement of the arguidos parents of Madeleine in any penally relevant action seems to result from the objective circumstances of them not being inside the apartment when she disappeared, from the normal behaviour that they adopted until said disappearance and afterwards, as can be amply concluded from the witness statements, from the telephone communications analysis and also from the forensics' conclusions, namely the Reports from the FSS and from the National Institute for Legal Medicine.
To this can be added that, in reality, none of the indications that led to their constitution as arguidos was later confirmed or consolidated. If not, let us see: the information concerning a previous alert of the media before the polices was not confirmed, the traces that were marked by the dogs were not ratified in laboratory, and the initial indications from the above transcribed email, better clarified at a later date, ended up being revealed as innocuous.
Even if, hypothetically, one could admit that Gerald and Kate McCann might be responsible over the child's death, it would still have to be explained how, where through, when, with what means, with the help of whom and where to they freed themselves of her body within the restricted time frame that would have been available to them to do so. Their daily routine, until the 3rd of May, had been circumscribed to the narrow borders of the 'Ocean Club' resort and to the beach that lies next to it, unknowing the surrounding terrain and, apart from the English friends that were with them on holiday there, they had no known friends or contacts in Portugal.
All this bearing in mind that:
- Despite all of this, it was not possible to obtain any piece of evidence that would allow for a medium man, under the light of the criteria of logics, of normality and of the general rules of experience, to formulate any lucid, sensate, serious and honest conclusion about the circumstances under which the child was removed from the apartment (whether dead or alive, whether killed in a neglectful homicide or an intended homicide, whether the victim of a targeted abduction or an opportunistic abduction), nor even to produce a consistent prognosis about her destiny and inclusively - the most dramatic - to establish whether she is still alive or if she is dead, as seems more likely.
But therefore we do not possess any minimally solid and rigorous foundation in order to be able to state, with the safety that is requested, which was or were the exact and precise crime(s) that was or were practised on the person of the minor Madeleine McCann - apart from the supposed but dismissed crime of exposure or abandonment - or to hold anyone responsible over its authorship.
Finally, it should be underlined that this case, unfortunately, is not a police novel, an appropriate scenario for a "crime" that is tailored for the success of the investigative work of a Sherlock Holmes or a Hercule Poirot, guided by the illusion that the forces of law and justice always manage to re-establish the altered order, returning to society the peace and the tranquillity that were only accidentally disturbed.
The disappearance of Madeleine McCann is rather an implacable and intricate case of real life, which lies closer to the lucid narrative by Friedrich Duerrenmatt, - "The Pledge. Requiem for the police novel" - because reality and everyday life owe little or no obedience, most of the times, to logic.
Life's events do not conform to stereotyped novel-like schemes, it is rather the case that its outcome is often the product of chance or conditioned by accidental and unpredictable factors, and therefore, hard to envision.
If concrete evidence came to light of whichever crime - if any, envisaged or not - had befallen her, then that might that might shed more light on who may have been responsible.
The McCann's lawyers quoted those passages too in their request for annulment. In reply the SC judges said;
even in the filing dispatch serious reservations are raised as to the likelihood of the allegation that Madeleine had been abducted, in view of the doubts raised by the Jane Tanner/Kate McCann version.
The investigation intended to see clarified those doubts by the reconstitution of the events mentioned in the closing dispatch, an initiative however that was made unfeasible by the witnesses' failure to appear after being summoned to.
http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/STJ_21_03_2017_Rejected.htm
In the said order, it was concluded also that the appellants had neglected, although not recklessly or grossly, the duty of custody of their children, and still that, although it had not been possible to determine if the child was alive or not, it seemed more likely she was dead.
-
I think if you list the indications that Maddie, wad, abducted and the evidence.... They will be the same
I don't think there is any evidence of what actually happened to her. It's not as if someone filmed her being taken from the flat and shoved in the boot of a car, preferably with license plates visible - as that would have pushed the button, via a magistrate, for an abduction alert. Hopefully.
IMO, an indication is Kate's assertion that she found the shutter raised and the window open. Evidence, IMO, would have been a video camera recording someone lifting it. Proof, IMO, would be that the video evidence hadn't been tampered with and that it was indeed that shutter and that any other explanation was impossible.
If it had ever come to court, her assertion would be her evidence as to what she saw, but whether that was deemed to be evidence as to the actual state of the shutters/ window could be open to question.
Gerry had also stated that he'd seen it open when he arrived, but again, that's not evidence of who lifted it.
On the other hand, there is evidence that the dogs alerted in the form of the video recordings. There is no evidence, however, as to what the dogs actually alerted to. Therefore, IMO, the alerts themselves were an indication, but despite the forensic lot hunting for evidence, none was found warranting any "meaningful interpretation".
In a court case, Mrs Fenn's statement could have been used as evidence that the McCanns didn't check as frequently as they'd said. However, her statement wasn't corroborated, and IMO, there are other potential explanations that make more sense to me. In any event, she didn't even see Madeleine crying, she just heard a child crying, who she believed to have been the same child, and that the noise came from below. It's not evidence that it was actually Madeleine crying.
The DNA results are evidence that could have beenn presented in court, circa Cipriano time, but not worthy of any "meaningful interpretation", or as the prosecutor put it "innocuous". Not even an indication, IMO. There never was any "blood spatter" or "100% DNA result" which is a long-enduring and much-cherished myth for some.
There were indications that Murat might have been involved, which is why the PJ checked out that possibility, but there is no evidence that he was.
As the prosecutor said, although the PJ felt that they had grounds for suspicion (I could quibble as to whether they were actually confronted with the text of the Lowe email or not... which I doubt), it all fizzled into nothingness.
-
The McCann's lawyers quoted those passages too in their request for annulment. In reply the SC judges said;
even in the filing dispatch serious reservations are raised as to the likelihood of the allegation that Madeleine had been abducted, in view of the doubts raised by the Jane Tanner/Kate McCann version.
The investigation intended to see clarified those doubts by the reconstitution of the events mentioned in the closing dispatch, an initiative however that was made unfeasible by the witnesses' failure to appear after being summoned to.
http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/STJ_21_03_2017_Rejected.htm
In the said order, it was concluded also that the appellants had neglected, although not recklessly or grossly, the duty of custody of their children, and still that, although it had not been possible to determine if the child was alive or not, it seemed more likely she was dead.
Could you quote the areas in the archiving report where it raises serious reservations Re abduction... If you can't then the SCare simply making things up.... Which raises serious questions
-
The McCann's lawyers quoted those passages too in their request for annulment. In reply the SC judges said;
even in the filing dispatch serious reservations are raised as to the likelihood of the allegation that Madeleine had been abducted, in view of the doubts raised by the Jane Tanner/Kate McCann version.
The investigation intended to see clarified those doubts by the reconstitution of the events mentioned in the closing dispatch, an initiative however that was made unfeasible by the witnesses' failure to appear after being summoned to.
http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/STJ_21_03_2017_Rejected.htm
In the said order, it was concluded also that the appellants had neglected, although not recklessly or grossly, the duty of custody of their children, and still that, although it had not been possible to determine if the child was alive or not, it seemed more likely she was dead.
I can't see "serious reservations" as to the abduction possibility. How I read it is that there's nothing concrete to come to any sensible conclusion in either direction as to what did happen to her, and even if, hypothetically, her parents had been involved, there was no logical explanation as to the logistics of how they could have disposed of the body, let alone evidence to support it.
I find the summary to be impartial. There are only two bits that I'd quibble: one is the assumption that it was definitely Madeleine that Mrs Fenn heard (discussed on various other threads), and what, to me, seems like an unlikely potential outcome of the reconstruction, although I can understand the it was felt necessary to slap some knuckles.
-
Could you quote the areas in the archiving report where it raises serious reservations Re abduction... If you can't then the SCare simply making things up.... Which raises serious questions
I don't need to quote anything, I agree with the judges. Are you seriously accusing them of making things up? I find that highly amusing, sorry. @)(++(*
-
I can't see "serious reservations" as to the abduction possibility. How I read it is that there's nothing concrete to come to any sensible conclusion in either direction as to what did happen to her, and even if, hypothetically, her parents had been involved, there was no logical explanation as to the logistics of how they could have disposed of the body, let alone evidence to support it.
I find the summary to be impartial. There are only two bits that I'd quibble: one is the assumption that it was definitely Madeleine that Mrs Fenn heard (discussed on various other threads), and what, to me, seems like an unlikely potential outcome of the reconstruction, although I can understand the it was felt necessary to slap some knuckles.
Saying there are serious reservations with the abduction scenario when the archiving report never said that is far from impartial and IMO questions the impartiality if the SC
-
I don't need to quote anything, I agree with the judges. Are you seriously accusing them of making things up? I find that highly amusing, sorry. @)(++(*
As it's not in the archiving report... Then they are making it up..
-
Saying there are serious reservations with the abduction scenario when the archiving report never said that is far from impartial and IMO questions the impartiality if the SC
I don't see any "serious reservations" either. More F..k knows what actually happened to her.
As there was no evidence of what had happened to her, all he could go on concerning the analysis of the parents was listing the indications, followed up in order to try to find evidence, of which there was none of any penally-relevant significance.
In view of that, I agree with the decision to file it under 277/1.
The SC appears to disagree. However, I have still not found an explanation as to why they said that it couldn't have been reopened if archived under 277/1. Particularly as reports from three years prior appear to substantiate that it was indeed reopened under 277/1 and Pedro do Carmo made what I presume to be a rare public statement to say that the parents weren't suspects.
-
As it's not in the archiving report... Then they are making it up..
Well, if you and Carana have formed that opinion we will have to defer to your superior knowledge, won't we? Three Supreme Court judges analysing a document written in their native language must be wrong
-
Well, if you and Carana have formed that opinion we will have to defer to your superior knowledge, won't we? Three Supreme Court judges analysing a document written in their native language must be wrong
As there is no evidence to suport their claim of serious reservations in the archiving report then they must be wrong.... Where is the evidence... Or do you just take their word for it..
IMO it raises serious questions Re their impartiality... And if they are, wrong about that...and possibly wrong that under 277/1...the case, cannot be reopened... What else could they be wrong about
-
Well, if you and Carana have formed that opinion we will have to defer to your superior knowledge, won't we? Three Supreme Court judges analysing a document written in their native language must be wrong
Are you suggesting that translation might be an issue? ;)
The only one I've raised was in response Davel's belief that indício equalled evidence, and we disagree on that.
If there's an issue over the meaning of a word, I'm happy to check it out, as anyone else could. Lucky she didn't disappear in Mongolia.
Otherwise, in terms of the general substance, no, I don't see the grounds for "serious reservations" as to an abduction. I found it to be 50/50, but with nothing of relevance to implicate the parents.
Have you found why they said that it couldn't have been reopened if archived under 277/1 yet?
-
Well, if you and Carana have formed that opinion we will have to defer to your superior knowledge, won't we? Three Supreme Court judges analysing a document written in their native language must be wrong
The archiving report is online for us all to read...both in the original portuguese and the english translation...there is no mention of serious reservations of abduction...fact
-
Can anyone find what they think "serious reservations" re an abduction scenario might have referred to in the text of the legal summary?
For the record, I ddn't find that he had a bias one way or the other. He did consider that the parents could have been involved, but explained why none of the initial indications that were found to be suspicious had any basis in reality.
-
I think the way it way it was used in the, archiving report is a good indication that in that context it was meant to mean evidence
What makes you think that? "I think the way it way it was used in the, archiving report is a good indication that in that context it was meant to mean evidence"
-
What makes you think that? "I think the way it way it was used in the, archiving report is a good indication that in that context it was meant to mean evidence"
I think I've already explained that... The AR states.... none of the indications used to make the McCann's arguidos.... As it needs evidence to make the McCann's arguidos it looks, as though.. Indications... Is being used instead of the word evidence
-
I can't find it now, but I remember reading a quote from Murat's lawyer about the archiving of the investigation. Asked if they were pleased his reply was they would wait and see under what conditions it was archived first. That remark makes more sense now. Obviously he would want 277/1 for his client. As the prosecutor mentioned no doubts about Murat, 277/1 was probably correct for him.
The question is, could a case be archived under two different Articles? Even if it could there would have been a huge fuss imo when people realised why the prosecutor had reached different conclusions about the arguidos. Just a thought.
Interesting point.
I'm not sure what the process would have been if there had been different rulings for the McCanns and Murat. On the other hand, he decided that 277/1 applied to both, so the issue is hypothetical in this case, IMO. And it appears that it was indeed reopened under that same category.
Murat was constituted as an arguido much later (whether that was compulsory or whether he requested it), but AFAIK, that would have been to questions that the UK side wanted to clarify. At the time, there was no provision for that kind of situation in the CPP (yes, I did check), and it appears that that status no longer applies, which wouldn't have been the case if the reason had been from the PT side.
Normally, once you have arguido status, that's it - you're lumped with it until the prosecutor, in the absence of justified objections requiring further investigation, decides to charge someone or archive the inquiry.
-
I think I've already explained that... The AR states.... none of the indications used to make the McCann's arguidos.... As it needs evidence to make the McCann's arguidos it looks, as though.. Indications... Is being used instead of the word evidence
I'm not an expert but they don't need evidence to make arguidos but just reasons.
-
I think I've already explained that... The AR states.... none of the indications used to make the McCann's arguidos.... As it needs evidence to make the McCann's arguidos it looks, as though.. Indications... Is being used instead of the word evidence
At the time it only required "suspicion". The version after that specified "founded suspicion".
To be fair, the PJ had the woof videos. IMO, that constituted "evidence" but only of the fact that the dogs alerted in locations associated with them.
However, it was in reality only ever an indication (IMO) as, to this day, there is no definitive answer as to what they actually alerted to as no concrete, physical, evidence was ever found, nor has it ever been clarified what other substances Eddie could have reacted to in order to eliminate those possibilities, nor was the provenance of the furniture ever verified, nor were the post-disappearance guests (4 lots of people) or other people entering the flat questioned as to a possible incident while they were there.
As to the car, it was meaningless. Unless I'm mistaken, I think I found (and posted) some time back that what Keela alerted to didn't appear to have even been the soup sample.
At the time, it was all the PJ had to go on and they ran with it, presumably in the hope of a confession.
-
I'm not an expert but they don't need evidence to make arguidos but just reasons.
These days it's called "founded suspicion". An arguido has the right to be informed of whatever the PJ consider to be "evidence".
From the police side, not necessarily just in PT, I can understand that they may use anything they find to confront their suspect with, even if they're unsure themselves, as a bluff tactic.
-
I'm not an expert but they don't need evidence to make arguidos but just reasons.
They listed the indications.... Including the dog alerts... I'm quite happy to accept they are not evidence
-
Are you suggesting that translation might be an issue? ;)
The only one I've raised was in response Davel's belief that indício equalled evidence, and we disagree on that.
If there's an issue over the meaning of a word, I'm happy to check it out, as anyone else could. Lucky she didn't disappear in Mongolia.
Otherwise, in terms of the general substance, no, I don't see the grounds for "serious reservations" as to an abduction. I found it to be 50/50, but with nothing of relevance to implicate the parents.
Have you found why they said that it couldn't have been reopened under 277/1 yet?
I think knowledge of Portuguese law and the language gives the Judges an advantage over people who don't know a lot about those things. Especially people who think high court judges make things up. Even if they do, they would be utter and complete fools to do that in this case.
Various books by legal experts have been quoted throughout this case. None of them can be checked by me, I don't understand Portuguese. I don't suppose they made that up either though.
There may be nothing of relevance to implicate the parents, but that's not what's required under 277/1, this is;
In fact, it does not appear anywhere in the order, that the collected evidence was sufficient to confirm that no crime was committed or that the then arguidos (here appellants) did not commit it in any sort of way (cf. quoted article 277-1).
http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/STJ_21_03_2017_Rejected.htm
-
I think knowledge of Portuguese law and the language gives the Judges an advantage over people who don't know a lot about those things. Especially people who think high court judges make things up. Even if they do, they would be utter and complete fools to do that in this case.
Various books by legal experts have been quoted throughout this case. None of them can be checked by me, I don't understand Portuguese. I don't suppose they made that up either though.
There may be nothing of relevance to implicate the parents, but that's not what's required under 277/1, this is;
In fact, it does not appear anywhere in the order, that the collected evidence was sufficient to confirm that no crime was committed or that the then arguidos (here appellants) did not commit it in any sort of way (cf. quoted article 277-1).
http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/STJ_21_03_2017_Rejected.htm
There is nothing in the archiving report that casts serious doubts on abduction... That is a fact
It's actually worse than that... The judges claim that in the archive report serious reservations are raised to abduction... That simply is not true
-
I think knowledge of Portuguese law and the language gives the Judges an advantage over people who don't know a lot about those things. Especially people who think high court judges make things up. Even if they do, they would be utter and complete fools to do that in this case.
Various books by legal experts have been quoted throughout this case. None of them can be checked by me, I don't understand Portuguese. I don't suppose they made that up either though.
There may be nothing of relevance to implicate the parents, but that's not what's required under 277/1, this is;
In fact, it does not appear anywhere in the order, that the collected evidence was sufficient to confirm that no crime was committed or that the then arguidos (here appellants) did not commit it in any sort of way (cf. quoted article 277-1).
http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/STJ_21_03_2017_Rejected.htm
I have never claimed to be an expert in either Portuguese, let alone Portuguese law. I can understand CdM articles, which really doesn't require an extensive vocabulary, and I've spent time examining changes in PT legislation over time.
Obviously, the venerable SC judges are better qualified than any of us to express their professional opinion. However, it might have been easier to understand if they'd explained exactly what led them to that opinion, and why the case appears to have been reopened under the sub-article that they'd said couldn't happen.
For the moment, I can't make any sense of it, unless you've found an explanation.
-
The archiving report is online for us all to read...both in the original portuguese and the english translation...there is no mention of serious reservations of abduction...fact
The wording of what G-Unit put in bold in a previous post seems ambigious to me.
even in the filing dispatch serious reservations are raised as to the likelihood of the allegation that Madeleine had been abducted,
IMO, that requires finding how it was phrased in the original, as it could either mean that the prosecutor, and the deput, had serious reservations themselves (which I can't find), or that the SC judges did upon reading the summary.
Does anyone care to pinpoint that point in the original? It might help to work out what was meant.
-
The wording of what G-Unit put in bold in a previous post seems ambigious to me.
even in the filing dispatch serious reservations are raised as to the likelihood of the allegation that Madeleine had been abducted,
IMO, that requires finding how it was phrased in the original, as it could either mean that the prosecutor, and the deput, had serious reservations themselves (which I can't find), or that the SC judges did upon reading the summary.
Does anyone care to pinpoint that point in the original? It might help to work out what was meant.
it waw amaral who had serious reservations about abduction....not the archiving report...were the judges confused
-
I have never claimed to be an expert in either Portuguese, let alone Portuguese law. I can understand CdM articles, which really doesn't require an extensive vocabulary, and I've spent time examining changes in PT legislation over time.
Obviously, the venerable SC judges are better qualified than any of us to express their professional opinion. However, it might have been easier to understand if they'd explained exactly what led them to that opinion, and why the case appears to have been reopened under the sub-article that they'd said couldn't happen.
For the moment, I can't make any sense of it, unless you've found an explanation.
The case was reopened under 279/1, not 277/1, wasn't it?
Article 279 - Reopening of the investigation
1. Once the period referred to in the previous article has expired, the investigation may be reopened only if new evidence appears to invalidate the grounds invoked by the Public Ministry in the filing order.
http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/Annulment_request.htm
-
The case was reopened under 279/1, not 277/1, wasn't it?
Article 279 - Reopening of the investigation
1. Once the period referred to in the previous article has expired, the investigation may be reopened only if new evidence appears to invalidate the grounds invoked by the Public Ministry in the filing order.
http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/Annulment_request.htm
AFAIK, 279/1 would seem to be most likely re the reopiening.
The discussion was about which point in the article it had been archived under: 277/1 or /2. And why the SC had apparently opined that it couldn't have been opened under 277/1, when seemingly it already had been 3 years previously.
Perhaps I'm having a "senior moment", but for the moment I really don't understand.
-
AFAIK, 279/1 would seem to be most likely re the reopiening.
The discussion was about which point in the article it had been archived under: 277/1 or /2. And why the SC had apparently opined that it couldn't have been opened under 277/1, when seemingly it already had been 3 years previously.
Perhaps I'm having a "senior moment", but for the moment I really don't understand.
Would it have been an offence in Portugal for Amaral to have published his opinion of the investigation if the McCanns were still under suspicion by the judiciary? (277/2)
-
Would it have been an offence in Portugal for Amaral to have published his opinion of the investigation if the McCanns were still under suspicion by the judiciary? (277/2)
That's the question I raised the other day... witth no response.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=8465.msg469898#msg469898
-
That's the question I raised the other day... witth no response.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=8465.msg469898#msg469898
Sorry, I missed that - but I think my question takes it on a stage further. If their arguido status was re-imposed shortly after the book's publication, would Amaral have broken any law in Portugal?
-
Sorry, I missed that - but I think my question takes it on a stage further. If their arguido status was re-imposed shortly after the book's publication, would Amaral have broken any law in Portugal?
Was it reimposed?
-
Was it reimposed?
No, it wasn't but it could have been at any time if SC are saying 277/2 was the correct filing article. So, a genuine question - as Amaral wouldn't shouldn't have known if the arguido status may be imposed at any time, did he break the law or not by writing about the parents in the manner he did?
-
Sorry, I missed that - but I think my question takes it on a stage further. If their arguido status was re-imposed shortly after the book's publication, would Amaral have broken any law in Portugal?
That was raised as well
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=8465.msg469841#msg469841
-
No, it wasn't but it could have been at any time if SC are saying 277/2 was the correct filing article. So, a genuine question - as Amaral wouldn't shouldn't have known if the arguido status may be imposed at any time, did he break the law or not by writing about the parents in the manner he did?
I’m sorry but I think you’re clutching at straws there Misty.
-
That was raised as well
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=8465.msg469841#msg469841
So the case was in a state of suspension rather than formally closed, despite the fact that no criminal case was actually pending against anybody?
-
So the case was in a state of suspension rather than formally closed, despite the fact that no criminal case was actually pending against anybody?
"State of suspension" could be a good description.
-
AFAIK, 279/1 would seem to be most likely re the reopiening.
The discussion was about which point in the article it had been archived under: 277/1 or /2. And why the SC had apparently opined that it couldn't have been opened under 277/1, when seemingly it already had been 3 years previously.
Perhaps I'm having a "senior moment", but for the moment I really don't understand.
279/1 was quoted when the case was reopened.
For all the reasons the Judges gave, the case was archived under 277/2. The SC Judges corrected a mistake by the prosecutors. They did it over a year ago and there has been no official protest as far as I know.
-
So the case was in a state of suspension rather than formally closed, despite the fact that no criminal case was actually pending against anybody?
What makes you think the case was 'formally closed'?
-
What makes you think the case was 'formally closed'?
Article 276 states that the inquiry should be either concluded or brought to trial. Was the preliminary judicial inquiry (2nd phase) under Article 286 ever brought into play?
-
No, it wasn't but it could have been at any time if SC are saying 277/2 was the correct filing article. So, a genuine question - as Amaral wouldn't shouldn't have known if the arguido status may be imposed at any time, did he break the law or not by writing about the parents in the manner he did?
Not sure, but I don't think so as the argument would be that it was published in good faith at the time. It might have curtailed further runs of it, the media circuit and presumably the documentary if the status had been reimposed before that was due to appear.
-
Not sure, but I don't think so as the argument would be that it was published in good faith at the time. It might have curtailed further runs of it, the media circuit and presumably the documentary if the status had been reimposed before that was due to appear.
But that didn’t happen so not sure what the purpose of these musings are ?
-
Article 276 states that the inquiry should be either concluded or brought to trial. Was the preliminary judicial inquiry (2nd phase) under Article 286 ever brought into play?
Do you mean the instruction phase, Misty? If so, not AFAIK.
-
Do you mean the instruction phase, Misty? If so, not AFAIK.
I used this as a reference for the sequence of investigative phases:-
http://www.ecba.org/extdocserv/projects/JusticeForum/Portugal180309.pdf
-
I used this as a reference for the sequence of investigative phases:-
http://www.ecba.org/extdocserv/projects/JusticeForum/Portugal180309.pdf
Both versions of 277 refer to the crime...was their sufficient evidence to show taht a crime ahd been committed
-
Both versions of 277 refer to the crime...was their sufficient evidence to show taht a crime ahd been committed
No, unless you count the alerts. IMO
-
No, unless you count the alerts. IMO
the alerts were referred to as indications ...not evidence in the archiving report...and have no evidential value
-
the alerts were referred to as indications ...not evidence in the archiving report...and have no evidential value
So that’s no evidence of a crime then.
-
So that’s no evidence of a crime then.
read the link re 277...it doesnt even mention evidence... I would say there is evidence...but not proof.. of a crime...but the alerts have no evidential value...and imo have been a complete red herring...I also believe that anyone who believes taht the alerts point to a cadaver in 5A is seriously misguided and doesnt understand the significance of the alerts
-
read the link re 277...it doesnt even mention evidence... I would say there is evidence...but not proof.. of a crime...but the alerts have no evidential value...and imo have been a complete red herring...I also believe that anyone who believes taht the alerts point to a cadaver in 5A is seriously misguided and doesnt understand the significance of the alerts
Be a little careful that your own opinion isn't just an insult to someone else. I think the alerts point to a cadaver, but that cadaver isn't Madeleine. OK but then I read that you think because of that I'm "seriously misguided and don't understand the significance of the alerts".
I'm in two minds whether to bowl your post.
-
Be a little careful that your own opinion isn't just an insult to someone else. I think the alerts point to a cadaver, but that cadaver isn't Madeleine. OK but then I read that you think because of that I'm "seriously misguided and don't understand the significance of the alerts".
I'm in two minds whether to bowl your post.
according to mark harrison ...no inferences can be drawn from the alerts...Im not stating my opinion...Im stating the opinion of one of the expertds in the case....you are drawing an inference from the alerts....mark harrison says you are wrong...not me..If the forum wants to ignore the opinion of the expert...then so be it...my opinion...is my opinion ...and based on fact
-
Be a little careful that your own opinion isn't just an insult to someone else. I think the alerts point to a cadaver, but that cadaver isn't Madeleine. OK but then I read that you think because of that I'm "seriously misguided and don't understand the significance of the alerts".
I'm in two minds whether to bowl your post.
so what evidence do you base your opinion that there was a cadaver in 5a...seing as the experts tell us the alerts ahve no evidential value or reliability
-
so what evidence do you base your opinion that there was a cadaver in 5a...seing as the experts tell us the alerts ahve no evidential value or reliability
Are you quoting Grime? http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_GRIMES.htm
"It is my view that it is possible that the EVRD is alerting to cadaver scent
contamination. No evidential or intelligence reliability can be made from this
alert unless it can be confirmed with corroborating evidence."
I read that as Martin Grime himself felt the alert was to a possible cadaver previously being there.
-
read the link re 277...it doesnt even mention evidence... I would say there is evidence...but not proof.. of a crime...but the alerts have no evidential value...and imo have been a complete red herring...I also believe that anyone who believes taht the alerts point to a cadaver in 5A is seriously misguided and doesnt understand the significance of the alerts
I think there may have been an excuse for people to be misguided when they were reliant on false newspaper reports.
In my opinion immediately the full FSS results came in it became self evident that the suspicions and allegations the McCanns had suffered were misguided to say the least.
Continuing the baseless accusation for the next eleven years until the present day is in my opinion something which never should have happened and wouldn't have in an ideal world. Unfortunately there is no such thing as an ideal world, is there?
All we can do is strive to make it better.
-
Are you quoting Grime? http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_GRIMES.htm
"It is my view that it is possible that the EVRD is alerting to cadaver scent
contamination. No evidential or intelligence reliability can be made from this
alert unless it can be confirmed with corroborating evidence."
I read that as Martin Grime himself felt the alert was to a possible cadaver previously being there.
there was a possibility of a cadaver being there ...without the dogs...Im quoting Harrison..
Im happy to accept that there was a cadaver in 5a...I dont need the dogs to tell me that
-
I think there may have been an excuse for people to be misguided when they were reliant on false newspaper reports.
In my opinion immediately the full FSS results came in it became self evident that the suspicions and allegations the McCanns had suffered were misguided to say the least.
Continuing the baseless accusation for the next eleven years until the present day is in my opinion something which never should have happened and wouldn't have in an ideal world. Unfortunately there is no such thing as an ideal world, is there?
All we can do is strive to make it better.
perhaps rob will feel he should ..bowl your post....
-
I think there may have been an excuse for people to be misguided when they were reliant on false newspaper reports.
In my opinion immediately the full FSS results came in it became self evident that the suspicions and allegations the McCanns had suffered were misguided to say the least.
Continuing the baseless accusation for the next eleven years until the present day is in my opinion something which never should have happened and wouldn't have in an ideal world. Unfortunately there is no such thing as an ideal world, is there?
All we can do is strive to make it better.
Never tust the press.
One inescapable point is that the PP could have given arguido status to the McCanns on the basis they were last to see Madeleine alive.
-
Never tust the press.
One inescapable point is that the PP could have given arguido status to the McCanns on the basis they were last to see Madeleine alive.
Indeed! That has been my thinking- they should be on the suspicion list purely for that fact they both claimed that on that particular night of all nights (what a coincidence!) they both did a physical check- all other evenings were 'listening'. When did Gerry tell Kate he did a open door -saw Maddie sleeping check? Hmmmm
-
Never tust the press.
One inescapable point is that the PP could have given arguido status to the McCanns on the basis they were last to see Madeleine alive.
that is absolutely fine and a non disputable fact
-
Never tust the press.
One inescapable point is that the PP could have given arguido status to the McCanns on the basis they were last to see Madeleine alive.
i dont trust the press..Ive actually been featured by name in the sun..re a professional matter.... but my very well reasoned opinions are based on the statements of harrison and grime
-
Never tust the press.
One inescapable point is that the PP could have given arguido status to the McCanns on the basis they were last to see Madeleine alive.
... and it may not have been a bad idea to do just that to afford them the protection provided by arguido status under Portuguese law and not done in desperation to apparently extract a confession all else having failed.
-
... and it may not have been a bad idea to do just that to afford them the protection provided by arguido status under Portuguese law and not done in desperation to apparently extract a confession all else having failed.
IYO
-
... and it may not have been a bad idea to do just that to afford them the protection provided by arguido status under Portuguese law and not done in desperation to apparently extract a confession all else having failed.
There should be an IMO in there somewhere unless you have incontrovertble evidence your assertion is true.
You being a Mod and all...tsk tsk
-
... and it may not have been a bad idea to do just that to afford them the protection provided by arguido status under Portuguese law and not done in desperation to apparently extract a confession all else having failed.
There was nothing wrong in trying to elicit a confession imo, it is after all a tried and tested police procedure in every jurisdiction in the world. Why do you condemn the Portuguese police for doing something which was their right as investigators ie to get to the truth by every legal avenue possible?
-
there was a possibility of a cadaver being there ...without the dogs...Im quoting Harrison..
Im happy to accept that there was a cadaver in 5a...I dont need the dogs to tell me that
Could you give me the actual quote from Harrison you are referring to please?
-
There should be an IMO in there somewhere unless you have incontrovertible evidence your assertion is true.
You being a Mod and all...tsk tsk
How can you ever find "incontrovertible evidence" of an assertion prefixed by "and it may not have been a bad idea".
Saying "And it may not have been a bad idea" clearly shows the concept is based on opinion. We could write IMO after it just to be pedantic.
-
How can you ever find "incontrovertible evidence" of an assertion prefixed by "and it may not have been a bad idea".
Saying "And it may not have been a bad idea" clearly shows the concept is based on opinion. We could write IMO after it just to be pedantic.
True, however to be grammatically correct no such caveat attaches to the latter part of the sentence.
"and not done in desperation to apparently extract a confession all else having failed".
In that case opinion is being passed off as fact and you as another Mod are excusing it.
-
True, however to be grammatically correct no such caveat attaches to the latter part of the sentence.
"and not done in desperation to apparently extract a confession all else having failed".
In that case opinion is being passed off as fact and you as another Mod are excusing it.
All that last bit hinges on the word "apparently", so that too is a way of seeing things, an opinion in other words.
It is an opinion expressed in terms of opinion.
-
For anyone who wishes to understand why the SC judges said the archived case couldn't be reopened if it was archived using 277/1, Euros 89 will buy the book they quoted from;
http://www.almedina.net/catalog/product_info.php?products_id=23805
-
For anyone who wishes to understand why the SC judges said the archived case couldn't be reopened if it was archived using 277/1, Euros 89 will buy the book they quoted from;
http://www.almedina.net/catalog/product_info.php?products_id=23805
Would that be in Portuguese?
-
There should be an IMO in there somewhere unless you have incontrovertble evidence your assertion is true.
You being a Mod and all...tsk tsk
Did you miss John's post where he pointed out that there is more than one way of expressing opinion?
NB
apparently - adverb ~ so the story goes - so I'm told - allegedly - as far as one knows - by all accounts - so it seems
That is only Google. I recommend you check others.
Perhaps you are unaware that criticism of a moderator more often than not leads to the award of points.
-
IYO
You are mistaken.
Please allow me to direct you to an example of a post which actually does not have a caveat ...
"One inescapable point is that the PP could have given arguido status to the McCanns on the basis they were last to see Madeleine alive." http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=8465.msg470596#msg470596
-
There was nothing wrong in trying to elicit a confession imo, it is after all a tried and tested police procedure in every jurisdiction in the world. Why do you condemn the Portuguese police for doing something which was their right as investigators ie to get to the truth by every legal avenue possible?
The role of the police is to investigate. Not to decide who is guilty without benefit of due process and to be pressurised into 'confessing'.
In my opinion that is not law enforcement and one wonders how many criminals have been let off the hook as a result and free to commit further crimes.
Every jurisdiction in the world suffers from miscarriages of justice some of which may very well be as a direct result of overzealous police tactics such as you describe.
Quote
Moita Flores:
Things were different in my time. She would have been under such an attack that before she realised anything, she'd be in jail.
Goncalo Amaral:
Right, but in your time, in our old times, investigation was made with fuel. Now we all move on honey.
http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/Nigel/id173.htm
-
As written by Sergey Malinka earlier this year in relation to Kate....
-
You are mistaken.
Please allow me to direct you to an example of a post which actually does not have a caveat ...
"One inescapable point is that the PP could have given arguido status to the McCanns on the basis they were last to see Madeleine alive." http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=8465.msg470596#msg470596
Well why didn’t you moderate it?
-
True, however to be grammatically correct no such caveat attaches to the latter part of the sentence.
"and not done in desperation to apparently extract a confession all else having failed".
In that case opinion is being passed off as fact and you as another Mod are excusing it.
Agreed, there are two parts to the post, the first part is not a bad idea to give them arguido status, second a statement of fact.
-
Would that be in Portuguese?
Naturalmente.
-
Could you give me the actual quote from Harrison you are referring to please?
Additionally I consider no inference can be drawn as to whether a human cadaver has previously been in any location without other supporting physical evidence.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARK_HARRISON.htm
-
Never tust the press.
One inescapable point is that the PP could have given arguido status to the McCanns on the basis they were last to see Madeleine alive.
I read that post and considered it an actual undeniable fact, therefore it could be opinion and fact at the same time.
-
Never tust the press.
One inescapable point is that the PP could have given arguido status to the McCanns on the basis they were last to see Madeleine alive.
It was mentioned as a factor, but it's not clear if that could have been the sole point.
I doubt it, even back then, as arguido status would have set the clock ticking to charge or archive, if there was no further indication other than that the parents were the last known people to have seen her.
-
It was mentioned as a factor, but it's not clear if that could have been the sole point.
i
I doubt it, even back then, as arguido status would have set the clock ticking to charge or archive, if there was no further indication other than that the parents were the last known people to have seen her.
The time limit starts from the moment the PP opens a file surely and arguido status has no time limit on it.?
The confusion for us arises in not knowing the rules and mechanisms by which the PP may legitimately "move the ranging rod closer".
-
The time limit starts from the moment the PP opens a file surely and arguido status has no time limit on it.?
The confusion for us arises in not knowing the rules and mechanisms by which the PP may legitimately "move the ranging rod closer".
According to Joana Morais;
Under the new code, any judicial process starts a countdown on the day that the first arguido is made: after 8 months, with two possible extensions of 3 months each, there has to be a decision to either accuse, or archive the case.
Robert Murat was made an arguido on the 14th of May 2007 - 4 months before the new Penal Process Code was enforced -, and 14 months later, the case was archived, caught in time between two different legal frames.
https://joana-morais.blogspot.com/2009/07/archiving-of-madeleine-mccann-process.html
-
According to Joana Morais;
Under the new code, any judicial process starts a countdown on the day that the first arguido is made: after 8 months, with two possible extensions of 3 months each, there has to be a decision to either accuse, or archive the case.
Robert Murat was made an arguido on the 14th of May 2007 - 4 months before the new Penal Process Code was enforced -, and 14 months later, the case was archived, caught in time between two different legal frames.
https://joana-morais.blogspot.com/2009/07/archiving-of-madeleine-mccann-process.html
So we've had arguidos in this investigation... When does it have to archive
-
The time limit starts from the moment the PP opens a file surely and arguido status has no time limit on it.?
The confusion for us arises in not knowing the rules and mechanisms by which the PP may legitimately "move the ranging rod closer".
Without hunting back for ages, I'm not sure how long an investigation can stay open if there are no arguidos. Offhand, i'm not even sure that it's specified.
Once there are arguidos, the ball game changes and the clock starts ticking.
That can put quite a stress on both the investigation team and the arguidos themselves. I haven't quite understood the reasoning as to why they have to retain that status (imposed or requested) until a final decision is made.
-
Without hunting back for ages, I'm not sure how long an investigation can stay open if there are no arguidos. Offhand, i'm not even sure that it's specified.
Once there are arguidos, the ball game changes and the clock starts ticking.
That can put quite a stress on both the investigation team and the arguidos themselves. I haven't quite understood the reasoning as to why they have to retain that status (imposed or requested) until a final decision is made.
https://www.ft.com/content/ca71ca96-ae89-11e7-aab9-abaa44b1e130
Former Portuguese PM Jose Sócrates charged with corruption
Peter Wise in Lisbon OCTOBER 11, 2017
snipped
........ The formal charges come almost three years after Mr Sócrates was named as an arguido, or formal suspect, in the case. ...................
After being named a suspect in the case in November 2014, Mr Sócrates was held in jail for nine months under laws that enable investigators to detain suspects in serious cases for long periods without bringing formal charges while they pursue their inquiries. He was released from detention two years ago, but formally charged on Wednesday.
The former prime minister has repeatedly accused state prosecutors of abusing his democratic rights by failing to bring formal charges sooner.
==================================================================
It seems there are exceptions to the rules.
-
strange system!
-
https://www.ft.com/content/ca71ca96-ae89-11e7-aab9-abaa44b1e130
Former Portuguese PM Jose Sócrates charged with corruption
Peter Wise in Lisbon OCTOBER 11, 2017
snipped
........ The formal charges come almost three years after Mr Sócrates was named as an arguido, or formal suspect, in the case. ...................
After being named a suspect in the case in November 2014, Mr Sócrates was held in jail for nine months under laws that enable investigators to detain suspects in serious cases for long periods without bringing formal charges while they pursue their inquiries. He was released from detention two years ago, but formally charged on Wednesday.
The former prime minister has repeatedly accused state prosecutors of abusing his democratic rights by failing to bring formal charges sooner.
==================================================================
It seems there are exceptions to the rules.
I would say it's more likely that we don't have a full understanding of the rules.
-
I would say it's more likely that we don't have a full understanding of the rules.
Which will change when we get to see the outcome...
-
I would say it's more likely that we don't have a full understanding of the rules.
It would appear the rules are adjusted to suit whichever players are on the field at the time.
-
It would appear the rules are adjusted to suit whichever players are on the field at the time.
Do you have an example of this in practice?
-
Do you have an example of this in practice?
This case.
-
This case.
OK; delineate then.
-
OK; delineate then.
The way it was archived under one clause and later reopened, and then even later said it was archived under a different clause. That is what I understood the case to be.
-
Do you have an example of this in practice?
I thought I'd already cited one in Socrates. Maybe this will help.http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=6455.45
-
The way it was archived under one clause and later reopened, and then even later said it was archived under a different clause. That is what I understood the case to be.
The SC explained in detail a) why it was not incorrect and b) why their response was permissible.
-
The SC explained in detail a) why it was not incorrect and b) why their response was permissible.
'
Yes OK but aren't they just excuses that allow complaints like this: "the rules are adjusted to suit whichever players are on the field at the time".
-
https://www.ft.com/content/ca71ca96-ae89-11e7-aab9-abaa44b1e130
Former Portuguese PM Jose Sócrates charged with corruption
Peter Wise in Lisbon OCTOBER 11, 2017
snipped
........ The formal charges come almost three years after Mr Sócrates was named as an arguido, or formal suspect, in the case. ...................
After being named a suspect in the case in November 2014, Mr Sócrates was held in jail for nine months under laws that enable investigators to detain suspects in serious cases for long periods without bringing formal charges while they pursue their inquiries. He was released from detention two years ago, but formally charged on Wednesday.
The former prime minister has repeatedly accused state prosecutors of abusing his democratic rights by failing to bring formal charges sooner.
==================================================================
It seems there are exceptions to the rules.
http://www.pgdlisboa.pt/leis/lei_mostra_articulado.php?tabela=leis&artigo_id=&nid=199&ficha=201&pagina=&nversao=&so_miolo=
I assume that the link is the latest CPP (which may have changed, yet again, since when he was first made arguido.)
Article 276 is the one we've looked at before (but an earlier version) on how long an inquiry can last without either laying charges or archiving it. The time limit is longer for, e.g., organised crime inquiries, or where there are numerous victims or arguidos.
It also refers to circumstances mentioned in Article 215, which is about how long someone can be held on remand depending on the nature of the crime and its complexity.
If I've understood 276/5, if ILORs have to be sent off and results waited for, the clock stops for up to half of the normal inquiry time.
Even so, 3 years sounds as if they were running somewhat late, but there could be exceptional circumstances of some kind.
ETA: missinng word for clarity: since.
-
'
Yes OK but aren't they just excuses that allow complaints like this: "the rules are adjusted to suit whichever players are on the field at the time".
I'm constantly surprised how people with no knowledge of how and why something us done in another country can have the effrontery to make disparaging comments.
-
I can see why the Socrates case would have fallen into the longer timeframe category...
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-portugal-corruption-socrates/portuguese-ex-pm-socrates-indicted-on-corruption-charges-idUSKBN1CG1U5
-
I'm constantly surprised how people with no knowledge of how and why something us done in another country can have the effrontery to make disparaging comments.
Well did you read https://www.reuters.com/article/us-portugal-corruption-socrates/portuguese-ex-pm-socrates-indicted-on-corruption-charges-idUSKBN1CG1U5? That hardly inspires confidence in the system does it.
-
Well did you read https://www.reuters.com/article/us-portugal-corruption-socrates/portuguese-ex-pm-socrates-indicted-on-corruption-charges-idUSKBN1CG1U5? That hardly inspires confidence in the system does it.
Have you seen what has been going on in the USA recently?
-
Have you seen what has been going on in the USA recently?
Whataboutery.
-
Whataboutery.
Very good 8@??)(
-
Have you seen what has been going on in the USA recently?
What exactly?
-
Have you seen what has been going on in the USA recently?
Yes, but I think that Misty's question / point was why the inquiry took so long in that case when the inquiry into Madeleine's disappearance was relatively short, although both were arguidos. If that wasn't her point, I expect she'll be along at some point to clarify.
-
Well did you read https://www.reuters.com/article/us-portugal-corruption-socrates/portuguese-ex-pm-socrates-indicted-on-corruption-charges-idUSKBN1CG1U5? That hardly inspires confidence in the system does it.
They seem to have caught a corrupt politician. Good for them.
-
'
Yes OK but aren't they just excuses that allow complaints like this: "the rules are adjusted to suit whichever players are on the field at the time".
The option I would go for is a poor understanding of the law and how it works on the part of most posters made worse by personal prejudice.
IMO and note the lack of delineation wrt which country.
-
Very good 8@??)(
Consider it your finest contribution to the forum, I shall be using it alot from now on.
-
Consider it your finest contribution to the forum, I shall be using it alot from now on.
I'm honoured. Might help to keep people more on topic as well, which would be a big plus
-
The option I would go for is a poor understanding of the law and how it works on the part of most posters made worse by personal prejudice.
IMO and note the lack of delineation wrt which country.
Poor understanding of the law... Personal prejudices... Sounds like the SC to me
-
They seem to have caught a corrupt politician. Good for them.
Indeed. It must have been a mammoth task unravelling all that. However, he's still innocent until proved guilty until the final appeal has been ruled upon.
Whatever happened to the so-called Freeport saga?
-
Well did you read https://www.reuters.com/article/us-portugal-corruption-socrates/portuguese-ex-pm-socrates-indicted-on-corruption-charges-idUSKBN1CG1U5? That hardly inspires confidence in the system does it.
Why do you feel a need to have a confidence in a system that in all reality as little to do with you from afar?
-
Why do you feel a need to have a confidence in a system that in all reality as little to do with you from afar?
Are we only supposed to attempt to understand how the "system" works in our physical neighbourhood?
-
Are we only supposed to attempt to understand how the "system" works in our physical neighbourhood?
Not at all,but by the same token what is thought or even written on here has no bearing what so ever in any other country despite some seeming to think so.
-
Are we only supposed to attempt to understand how the "system" works in our physical neighbourhood?
It's commendable to try to understand other systems. It's not acceptable to criticise them without understanding the them in my opinion.
-
Not at all,but by the same token what is thought or even written on here has no bearing what so ever in any other country despite some seeming to think so.
Fair enough, but I can think of one presumably native Portuguese person (at least) who assured everyone that the McCanns would automatically have to become arguidos again as soon as the case reopened as that was the law.
-
Why do you feel a need to have a confidence in a system that in all reality as little to do with you from afar?
It is all to do with trying to find the solution to the McCann case. I'd like to know if the PJ were corrupt? If politicians were on the take, what about the PJ? Is it possible?
-
It is all to do with trying to find the solution to the McCann case. I'd like to know if the PJ were corrupt? If politicians were on the take, what about the PJ? Is it possible?
Is there any reason to believe that they are any more corrupt or incompetent that any other police force?
-
Is there any reason to believe that they are any more corrupt or incompetent that any other police force?
Maybe not but IMO the NZ are not corrupt. But my interest is in the McCann case being investigated by the PJ initially. So they are the ones in the limelight ATM.
-
I suppose the ECHR will be lambasted if they turn the McCanns down too.
-
I suppose the ECHR will be lambasted if they turn the McCanns down too.
I suppose the ECHR will be lambasted if they support the mccanns
-
Maybe not but IMO the NZ are not corrupt. But my interest is in the McCann case being investigated by the PJ initially. So they are the ones in the limelight ATM.
Only for a handful, I fancy.
-
I suppose the ECHR will be lambasted if they support the mccanns
Not by me they won't.
-
Not by me they won't.
And not by me
-
Only for a handful, I fancy.
Even if I was on my own, I'd still want to know.
-
http://portugalresident.com/new-%E2%80%9Ccasa-pia-bombshell%E2%80%9D-echr-raps-portuguese-courts-for-violating-defendants-human-rights
Posted by PORTUGALPRESS on June 26, 2018
Former TV presenter Carlos Cruz - who consistently pleaded innocence in the explosive Casa Pia child sex abuse trial - could finally be on his way to clearing his name: the European Court of Human Rights has upheld his complaint against the Court of Appeal, for refusing to analyse new evidence. The ECHR ruling considered complaints three fellow defendants, all of whom received jail terms as their careers were destroyed, but only ruled in favour of Carlos Cruz.
The ruling could lead to Cruz receiving a whole new trial, said initial reports.
This is just the latest bombshell for a case that refuses to ‘go away’, despite all the years dedicated to it, and ‘lurid revelations’ on national media.
Only last week, the ECHR ordered the Portuguese State to pay former Socialist minister Pedro Pedroso €68,000 for failings it found in the way Pedroso had been treated (click here).
Said the ruling, “at the moment of his arrest, there did not exist sufficient proof that Paulo Pedroso had committee crimes of sexual abuse of minors, as related by the youngsters”.
This ruling also saw the court “condemn the fact that defendants did not have the opportunity to confront the testimony of the victims of the crimes in court with what they said during the investigation”, wrote tabloid Correio da Manhã - albeit that judges rejected complaints by all four defendants that they had not received a just trial.
It is still too early today to hear the response of Cruz and fellow defendants João Alberto Ferreira Diniz (the doctor condemned to seven years behind bars), Jorge Marques Leitão Ritto (the UNESCO ambassador condemned to six years and eight months) and Manuel José Abrantes (a former deputy director of Casa Pia, condemned to five years and nine months) but considering the cost of this case which dragged on for years, today’s news is explosive.
Reports coming in stress however that the panel of judges was not ‘unanimous’, in that they only found in favour of one complaint referring to Carlos Cruz.
Cruz, who has always denied the three crimes of sexual abuse for which he was convicted, had hoped for €50,000 in moral damages. He finally went to jail in 2013 (almost three years after being convicted), emerging in 2016 on conditional release.
natasha.donn@algarveresident.com
-
yes...but you understand what the word evidence means
Do you have a case number ? That would be evidence. Or photocopies of paperwork lodged ? That would be evidence.
Do you have any of those Davel?
-
Do you have a case number ? That would be evidence. Or photocopies of paperwork lodged ? That would be evidence.
Do you have any of those Davel?
a case number would be proof...as I said you do not understand what evidence means
-
a case number would be proof...as I said you do not understand what evidence means
Well do you have proof or evidence then?
-
a case number would be proof...as I said you do not understand what evidence means
So you have a case number ?
-
Well do you have proof or evidence then?
There is evidence that the case has been submitted
-
So you have a case number ?
you asked if I had evidence...have you given up on that now you realised you meant proof
-
you asked if I had evidence...have you given up on that now you realised you meant proof
I can’t believe I have to do but
evidence
ˈɛvɪd(ə)ns/Submit
noun
1.
the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.
"the study finds little evidence of overt discrimination"
synonyms: proof, confirmation, verification, substantiation, corroboration, affirmation, authentication, attestation, documentation;
I think that covers a case number and/ photocopies of papers lodged.
So do you have a case number or paperwork?
-
Well do you have proof or evidence then?
Now don't be silly ?{)(**
-
Now don't be silly ?{)(**
I wouldn't do that.
-
There are several others... Defamation is, defamation... Can you quote any ECHR cases, where defamation has been allowed where there is no evidence to support it
And can you quote a case number or produce any paperwork that proves a case has been lodged with the ECHR, otherwise everything else is academic?
-
And can you quote a case number or produce any paperwork that proves a case has been lodged with the ECHR, otherwise everything else is academic?
So now you clearly ask for proof when I have said I have evidence... LOL
-
There is evidence that the case has been submitted
Has it now been rejected?
-
I have searched the ECHR database and there is no case listed between McCann and Portugal so make of that what you will.
https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng#{"fulltext":["mccann"],"sort":["kpdate Descending"]}
-
I have searched the ECHR database and there is no case listed between McCann and Portugal so make of that what you will.
https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng#{"fulltext":["mccann"],"sort":["kpdate Descending"]}
There is no notice of rejection...The case will not even have begun to be looked at yet
-
I have searched the ECHR database and there is no case listed between McCann and Portugal so make of that what you will.
https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng#{"fulltext":["mccann"],"sort":["kpdate Descending"]}
So, possibly in an in-tray - there again possibly not.
-
So, possibly in an in-tray - there again possibly not.
Sounds to me that it has been rejected without being examined. The last case involving a McCann was a terrorist who the SAS shot before he and his two other pals could detonate a bomb in Gibraltar.
-
So now you clearly ask for proof when I have said I have evidence... LOL
Oh dear. You have nothing to substantiate your claim that a case has even been lodged have you ?
-
Sounds to me that it has been rejected without being examined.
I doubt it because I think there would be a record of rejection...as there was in the Alfie Evans case
-
I doubt it because I think there would be a record of rejection...as there was in the Alfie Evans case
Oh dear %56&
-
I think we only have the word of that well-know spinmaster Clarence Michell that this has happened
-
Oh dear %56&
https://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/Decision_Evans_v_UK.pdf
so no notice of rejection in the Mccann case
-
I think we only have the word of that well-know spinmaster Clarence Michell that this has happened
no theres more than that as most are aware
-
https://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/Decision_Evans_v_UK.pdf
so no notice of rejection in the Mccann case
So obviously it never got past the first hurdle, that's what rejected without being examined means.
-
So obviously it never got past the first hurdle, that's what rejected without being examined means.
he will cling to his beliefs forever we know that 8)-)))
-
So obviously it never got past the first hurdle, that's what rejected without being examined means.
If that's your opinion... But what is your opinion worth
How much do you know about the admission criteria... Tell us on what grounds you think it was, rejected... I really doubt you have a clue
-
There is no notice of rejection...The case will not even have begun to be looked at yet
That is evidence it wasn’t submitted....
-
That is evidence it wasn’t submitted....
never said it wasnt....very weak evidence.......evidence in support of something does not mean it happened..
I do think its a diversion to continually ask for evidence when regular posters on the forum know what evidence exists......I would say its almost certain an application has been made...I would be very surprised if it hadnt...and having looked at the admission criteria I would also be very surprised if it was rejected
-
The ECHR according to the opening post confirmed as long ago as September 2017 that an application had been made and since it is still not recorded in the register it must be assumed that it was rejected. The only other explanation that I can see is that the register is defunct and does not reflect the true situation. If the application had been accepted it would have moved to the second phase by now and doesn't appear to have happened.
-
The ECHR according to the opening post confirmed as long ago as September 2017 that an application had been made and since it is still not recorded in the register it must be assumed that it was rejected. The only other explanation that I can see is that the register is defunct and does not reflect the true situation. If the application had been accepted it would have moved to the second phase by now and doesn't appear to have happened.
That's your opinion... Nothing more... Again... On what grounds might it be rejected... Are you aware of the grounds for rejection... Based on your posts, I think not
What's the second phase by the way... And how many phases, are there
-
So obviously it never got past the first hurdle, that's what rejected without being examined means.
Why would the case be rejected by the ECHR without even being examined?
-
Why would the case be rejected by the ECHR without even being examined?
Probably because the mccanns don't qualify.
A case will only be successful if:
There has been a violation of a human right
The application form has been filled in correctly
The applicant is a ‘victim’
The applicant has exhausted all domestic remedies available
lets face it the only violation of rights - were maddies imo.
-
Probably because the mccanns don't qualify.
A case will only be successful if:
There has been a violation of a human right
The application form has been filled in correctly
The applicant is a ‘victim’
The applicant has exhausted all domestic remedies available
lets face it the only violation of rights - were maddies imo.
It's a bit more complex but at least you've made an attempt to answer... Article 8 as I've explained with cites
-
It's a bit more complex but at least you've made an attempt to answer... Article 8 as I've explained with cites
Article 10 back at you.
-
Article 10 back at you.
Read the judgements I've posted... 10 does not gine the right to defame
-
Probably because the mccanns don't qualify.
A case will only be successful if:
There has been a violation of a human right
The application form has been filled in correctly
The applicant is a ‘victim’
The applicant has exhausted all domestic remedies available
lets face it the only violation of rights - were maddies imo.
You’d still have to examine the case before deciding it didn’t comply with one of the criteria you’ve mentioned don’t you agree?
-
Read the judgements I've posted... 10 does not gine the right to defame
It gives the right to say what happened in the investigation and what the opinions of the policeman involved were.
-
It gives the right to say what happened in the investigation and what the opinions of the policeman involved were.
Amaral said more than was in the files... He has no right to defame the McCann's as my quoted cases show.. Imo
Nowhere in the files does it, state proof of death in the, apartment
-
It gives the right to say what happened in the investigation and what the opinions of the policeman involved were.
In your opinion... It's up to the ECHR
-
Amaral said more than was in the files... He has no right to defame the McCann's as my quoted cases show.. Imo
Nowhere in the files does it, state proof of death in the, apartment
He was relaying what he thought - as head investigator of the case.
He concluded the mccanns were involved - what he could prove and couldn't we will maybe never know.
How can you call that defaming the mccanns.
as an after thought wouldn't the 15 markers found - be enough evidence in uk... or is that a myth
-
He was relaying what he thought - as head investigator of the case.
He concluded the mccanns were involved - what he could prove and couldn't we will maybe never know.
How can you call that defaming the mccanns.
as an after thought wouldn't the 15 markers found - be enough evidence in uk... or is that a myth
The 15 markers is a myth.... Amaral said he could prove Maddie died in the apartment... He presented his, evidence... He proved nothing
-
The 15 markers is a myth.... Amaral said he could prove Maddie died in the apartment... He presented his, evidence... He proved nothing
He was took off the case - so how could he.
-
He was took off the case - so how could he.
Have you watched his documentary.... One of the subjects in the trial
-
He was took off the case - so how could he.
It's not really down to the police to prove anything -that's a job of lawyers in court.
-
Some posters, don't seem to be aware of the contents of amarals documentary.... How can they have a valid opinion of the case when they are not familiar with the facts.
In his documentary amaral presented his evidence that he claimed proved Maddie, died in the apartment... It didn't... He didn't understand the evidence
-
I like this one "He was taken off the case - so how could he".
-
It's not really down to the police to prove anything -that's a job of lawyers in court.
Agreed but the police must have sufficient and credible evidence to present before a case gets to court.
-
He was took off the case - so how could he.
Why didn't his successor pursue Amaral's theory ?
-
Agreed but the police must have sufficient and credible evidence to present before a case gets to court.
Yes, their job is to assess evidence and come to conclusions based on that evidence.
-
Why didn't his successor pursue Amaral's theory ?
Which theory did his successor pursue?
-
Which theory did his successor pursue?
It seems it's now been abandoned
-
He was took off the case - so how could he.
That's immaterial - his book and video claimed to prove it. He made a false claim as anyone with any sense can clearly see.
-
Why didn't his successor pursue Amaral's theory ?
Why was GA took off the case. imo he was getting to close
-
Why was GA took off the case. imo he was getting to close
Too close to what?
-
Why was GA took off the case. imo he was getting to close
That's rubbish IMO.... Do you think the PJ then covered up to protect the mccanns
-
Too close to what?
The truth of the lie.
-
The truth of the lie.
@)(++(*
-
You’d still have to examine the case before deciding it didn’t comply with one of the criteria you’ve mentioned don’t you agree?
Probably to frivolous after all it is portugal the mcanns are going after.
-
Probably to frivolous after all it is portugal the mcanns are going after.
LOL again. In order to decide if a case is "frivolous" don't you think it needs to be examined first, or do you think the judges at the ECHR were handed the document and told "It's from those McCann folk", to which the judges said "not those frivolous b........s?!" and chucked the case in the bin, unexamined?
-
That's immaterial - his book and video claimed to prove it. He made a false claim as anyone with any sense can clearly see.
I don't think his book made any such claim.
-
I don't think his book made any such claim.
The documentary did
-
@)(++(*
Well you - don't know what the truth is do you
ps
I didn't mean the book
-
Some posters, don't seem to be aware of the contents of amarals documentary.... How can they have a valid opinion of the case when they are not familiar with the facts.
In his documentary amaral presented his evidence that he claimed proved Maddie, died in the apartment... It didn't... He didn't understand the evidence
I think he understood it perfectly well .
So, whose hairbrush was sent to the Birmingham laboratory?
According to the Daily Mail, Clarence Mitchell states that Madeleine’s hairbrush was given to dubious Daniel Krugel for DNA matches. Daniel Krugel was in the Algarve in July 2007. The FSS samples were received in August 2007.
Whose HAIRBRUSH was the police given as being Madeleine’s?
The Forensic Science Service Birmingham received Madeleine’s hairbrush as forensics.
From the Lowe Report:
“Examination and results
Reference objects
I received [obtained] information from the pillow-case SJM/1, the tops SJM2, 4 and 5, and the HAIRBRUSH SJM/36 belonging to Madeleine McCann or used by her. The hair found on these objects was used in substitution of [in place of] reference samples of her hair, [which were] not considered to be authentic samples of her hair.
No hair was recovered from the pillow-case SJM/1 nor the HAIRBRUSH SJM/36.”
The FSS received what they thought to be Madeleine’s hairbrush in August 2007. Madeleine’s hairbrush is allegedly given to Mr Krugel in July 2007 and returned to the McCanns ten years later.
It's an important point to make, that needs clarification, more than the issue of the conflicting versions, if Madeleine's hairbrush wasn't sent to the FSS then one could argue the validity of the tests.
https://joana-morais.blogspot.com/2017/05/so-whose-hairbrush-was-sent-to.html
-
In your opinion... It's up to the ECHR
And the Portuguese Supreme Court.
-
LOL again. In order to decide if a case is "frivolous" don't you think it needs to be examined first, or do you think the judges at the ECHR were handed the document and told "It's from those McCann folk", to which the judges said "not those frivolous b......s?!" and chucked the case in the bin, unexamined?
8((()*/...couldn't have said it better myself
-
And the Portuguese Supreme Court.
The ECHR has the authority to correct them
-
I think he understood it perfectly well .
So, whose hairbrush was sent to the Birmingham laboratory?
According to the Daily Mail, Clarence Mitchell states that Madeleine’s hairbrush was given to dubious Daniel Krugel for DNA matches. Daniel Krugel was in the Algarve in July 2007. The FSS samples were received in August 2007.
Whose HAIRBRUSH was the police given as being Madeleine’s?
The Forensic Science Service Birmingham received Madeleine’s hairbrush as forensics.
From the Lowe Report:
“Examination and results
Reference objects
I received [obtained] information from the pillow-case SJM/1, the tops SJM2, 4 and 5, and the HAIRBRUSH SJM/36 belonging to Madeleine McCann or used by her. The hair found on these objects was used in substitution of [in place of] reference samples of her hair, [which were] not considered to be authentic samples of her hair.
No hair was recovered from the pillow-case SJM/1 nor the HAIRBRUSH SJM/36.”
The FSS received what they thought to be Madeleine’s hairbrush in August 2007. Madeleine’s hairbrush is allegedly given to Mr Krugel in July 2007 and returned to the McCanns ten years later.
It's an important point to make, that needs clarification, more than the issue of the conflicting versions, if Madeleine's hairbrush wasn't sent to the FSS then one could argue the validity of the tests.
https://joana-morais.blogspot.com/2017/05/so-whose-hairbrush-was-sent-to.html
He didn't understand the 15 alleles or the dog alerts
-
I'm sure that this has been posted before, but worth doing again, I feel. A step by step guide to the process.
https://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/Your_Application_ENG.pdf
-
I don't think his book made any such claim.
His book claimed as fact that Madeleine died in the apartment, do you dispute this?
-
His book claimed as fact that Madeleine died in the apartment, do you dispute this?
You dispute it - but the fact is ...you don't know what happened to maddie.
-
He didn't understand the 15 alleles or the dog alerts
What on the hair brush - my post referred to the hairbrush D
-
You dispute it - but the fact is ...you don't know what happened to maddie.
either does davel
-
I also found this quite interesting - http://app.echr.coe.int/CheckList/?cookieCheck=true
Only 5% of applications receive a judgement - all the rest fall by the wayside.
-
What on the hair brush - my post referred to the hairbrush D
You need to provide a cite for brush given to krugel.... Quite possibly he was given the brush then returned it
-
I also found this quite interesting - http://app.echr.coe.int/CheckList/?cookieCheck=true
Only 5% of applications receive a judgement - all the rest fall by the wayside.
We already know that.....
-
An interesting thing about the ECHR website is that it has a search facility for checking on progress of applications. However you need to case number in order to search, but there seems no way of finding out the case number.
-
An interesting thing about the ECHR website is that it has a search facility for checking on progress of applications. However you need to case number in order to search, but there seems no way of finding out the case number.
What a terrible inconvenience.
-
It is really, for without a case number, it cannot be demonstrated that an application was ever lodged.
-
It is really, for without a case number, it cannot be demonstrated that an application was ever lodged.
Why would you doubt it? Lodging an application seems like the next logical step, the McCanns’ have said they did, the media has reported that the ECHR received the application, why lie about any of this?
-
Why would you doubt it? Lodging an application seems like the next logical step, the McCanns’ have said they did, the media has reported that the ECHR received the application, why lie about any of this?
Have you a cite for that ?
-
Have you a cite for that ?
See the first post of this thread
-
So long ago I'd forgotten about that 8((()*/
(reply to VS post 2010)
-
It has 95% chance of being rejected. Might already have been.
-
It has 95% chance of being rejected. Might already have been.
If the McCann's Application which was supposedly lodged last autumn had been accepted it would be recorded within the system viewable by the public. The fact that it is not recorded must in reality mean it has either been withdrawn or was rejected at the very first hurdle.
-
If the McCann's Application which was supposedly lodged last autumn had been accepted it would be recorded within the system viewable by the public. The fact that it is not recorded must in reality mean it has either been withdrawn or was rejected at the very first hurdle.
Whilst I understand the logic of this and you may well be right, can you give an example from the system of a case which has been accepted but nothing more than that?
-
Whilst I understand the logic of this and you may well be right, can you give an example from the system of a case which has been accepted but nothing more than that?
Every case which is accepted is given a unique reference number and is searchable on the ECHR database.
-
Every case which is accepted is given a unique reference number and is searchable on the ECHR database.
If we don’t know the number how can we search for it?
-
If the McCann's Application which was supposedly lodged last autumn had been accepted it would be recorded within the system viewable by the public. The fact that it is not recorded must in reality mean it has either been withdrawn or was rejected at the very first hurdle.
extract from - https://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/Your_Application_ENG.pdf
Your application to the ECHR:
Do not call the Court to check whether your application arrived
safely. The Court will contact you if it needs any more information.
The Central Office sorts the mail and sends your application to the
legal division whose job it is to deal with it, that is, the legal division
responsible for the State against which the application is lodged. An
application against Germany, for example, will be sent to the legal
division that deals with German cases, because the people working in
that division speak German and are familiar with the country’s legislation.
Your case will then be given a number and examined by a lawyer. This
does not necessarily mean that the Court has accepted your application;
it just means that it has been registered.
If the Court contacts you,
you must reply within the specified time, otherwise your file may
simply be rejected or destroyed
-
This is where you go to search for progress on your application. Without knowing how the number you have no way of knowing the current situation with regard the McCann case
http://app.echr.coe.int/SOP/index.aspx?lg=en
-
This is where you go to search for progress on your case. Without knowing how the number you have no way of knowing the current situation with regard the McCann case
http://app.echr.coe.int/SOP/index.aspx?lg=en
I posted that information a few posts back. You didn't seem interested ?{)(**
-
I posted that information a few posts back. You didn't seem interested ?{)(**
I didn’t notice it, humble apologies.
-
If the McCann's Application which was supposedly lodged last autumn had been accepted it would be recorded within the system viewable by the public. The fact that it is not recorded must in reality mean it has either been withdrawn or was rejected at the very first hurdle.
That's a bold statement... I cannot see any reason for the application to be rejected so can't see that you are correct
-
If we don’t know the number how can we search for it?
You won't have to- the sauces of the McCanns will tell the Sun newspapers and...
-
If we don’t know the number how can we search for it?
You can simply search under the name McCann.
-
You can simply search under the name McCann.
Can you? Even for initial applications? That’s why I asked you if you had an example of another case at application stage only that we can look at.
-
As far as I can see, if an application has been made and a case number generated, the only people privy to that information are the McCanns and the court administrators .
-
You can simply search under the name McCann.
If it had been rejected there would be a record of rejection.. I can't find one... But I can find noticed of rejection of two other recent cases
-
extract from - https://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/Your_Application_ENG.pdf
Your application to the ECHR:
Do not call the Court to check whether your application arrived
safely. The Court will contact you if it needs any more information.
The Central Office sorts the mail and sends your application to the
legal division whose job it is to deal with it, that is, the legal division
responsible for the State against which the application is lodged. An
application against Germany, for example, will be sent to the legal
division that deals with German cases, because the people working in
that division speak German and are familiar with the country’s legislation.
Your case will then be given a number and examined by a lawyer. This
does not necessarily mean that the Court has accepted your application;
it just means that it has been registered.
If the Court contacts you,
you must reply within the specified time, otherwise your file may
simply be rejected or destroyed
You wonder how that squares with the bit in the original article which says...
Last night the European Court of Human Rights confirmed an appeal had been lodged and officials were investigating its "admissibility’’ before deciding what to do next.
-
You wonder how that squares with the bit in the original article which says...
The people at the ECHR had been on tenterhooks for months waiting for this important missive and felt bound to announce it's arrival to the world at large @)(++(*
Alternatively it was Spin, pure and simple.
-
You wonder how that squares with the bit in the original article which says...
The two statements are not contradictory IMO.
-
If you Google... Alfie Evans... ECHR... you will find a notice of rejection.... But nothing for McCann ECHR...
So no rejection imo
-
You need to provide a cite for brush given to krugel.... Quite possibly he was given the brush then returned it
No brush was given to Krugel. The hair was taken from the hood of Madeleine's coat.
Looking For Madeleine
By Anthony Summers, Robbyn Swan
Back on topic please, everyone: McCanns appeal to the European Court of Human Rights
-
Posters are reminded to stay within the confines of the header and opening post. TY
-
If you Google... Alfie Evans... ECHR... you will find a notice of rejection.... But nothing for McCann ECHR...
So no rejection imo
It could have been rejected as being Manifestly Ill-founded under “fourth Instance”, namely...
One particular category of complaints submitted to the Court comprises what are commonly referred to as “fourth instance” complaints. This term – which does not feature in the text of the Convention and has become established through the case-law of the Convention institutions (Kemmache v. France (no. 3), § 44) – is somewhat paradoxical, as it places the emphasis on what the Court is not: it is not a court of appeal or a court which can quash rulings given by the courts in the States Parties to the Convention or retry cases heard by them, nor can it re-examine cases in the same way as a Supreme Court. Fourth-instance applications therefore stem from a misapprehension on the part of the applicants as to the Court’s role and the nature of the judicial machinery established by the Convention.
-
It could have been rejected as being Manifestly Ill-founded under “fourth Instance”, namely...
Why would the application not have been given a number in such an instance?
-
It could have been rejected as being Manifestly Ill-founded under “fourth Instance”, namely...
have you read the cite you have posted...Im sure the mccanns realise the ECHR is not a court of appeal in general terms......but it is acourt of appeal when the judement concerns human rights
-
It could have been rejected as being Manifestly Ill-founded under “fourth Instance”, namely...
could you explain precisely your claim that it could be manifestly ill founded
-
have you read the cite you have posted...Im sure the mccanns realise the ECHR is not a court of appeal in general terms......but it is acourt of appeal when the judement concerns human rights
A little light reading...
https://www.justitsministeriet.dk/sites/default/files/media/Arbejdsomraader/International/Guide_pratique_ENG.pdf (https://www.justitsministeriet.dk/sites/default/files/media/Arbejdsomraader/International/Guide_pratique_ENG.pdf)
-
A little light reading...
https://www.justitsministeriet.dk/sites/default/files/media/Arbejdsomraader/International/Guide_pratique_ENG.pdf (https://www.justitsministeriet.dk/sites/default/files/media/Arbejdsomraader/International/Guide_pratique_ENG.pdf)
have a look at fourth instance pg69 and you will see why you were wrong to raise it
-
have a look at fourth instance pg69 and you will see why you were wrong to raise it
That’s where it comes from. It gives lots of clues as to why this application may have been rejected.
-
That’s where it comes from. It gives lots of clues as to why this application may have been rejected.
really...cite some..........if its article 8...fourth instance does not even apply...
-
fourth instance is invoked where the appellant has a complaint that falls outside of ...human rights.....but the apellant may try and claim an unfair trial related to an issue that has no relavence to human rights
-
really...cite some..........if its article 8...fourth instance does not even apply...
Cite for that, should be easy.
-
Cite for that, should be easy.
I asked you for a cite first which you have been unable to supply..
If you read the paper you quoted fourth instance applies when the appellants do not have a calim against any particular article but feel they have been teated badly by the initial court decision...it may be heard under the right to a fair trial
Not article 8
Have you, actually read it
-
I asked you for a cite first which you have been unable to supply..
If you read the paper you quoted fourth instance applies when the appellants do not have a calim against any particular article but feel they have been teated badly by the initial court decision...it may be heard under the right to a fair trial
Not article 8
Have you, actually read it
I read the paper.
Fourth Instance is a section under Inadmissibility based on the Merits, subsection Manifestly Ill Founded.
-
Agreed but the police must have sufficient and credible evidence to present before a case gets to court.
Did anyone tell this to Amaral?
-
Why was GA took off the case. imo he was getting to close
I like a bit of humour at times.
-
You need to provide a cite for brush given to krugel.... Quite possibly he was given the brush then returned it
So you are not familiar with the hair brush saga. I think Kizi has finally raised a point that needs answering.
-
So you are not familiar with the hair brush saga. I think Kizi has finally raised a point that needs answering.
It's been answerred by Brietta
-
I read the paper.
Fourth Instance is a section under Inadmissibility based on the Merits, subsection Manifestly Ill Founded.
Yes I know... I read it... So again... How would it aply to this case....
-
Yes I know... I read it... So again... How would it aply to this case....
That means that it is not its task to deal with errors of fact or law allegedly committed by a national court unless and in so far as such errors may have infringed rights and freedoms protected by the Convention. It may not itself assess the facts which have led a national court to adopt one decision rather than another. If it were otherwise, the Court would be acting as a court of third or fourth instance, which would be to disregard the limits imposed on its action
In the light of the above considerations the Court may not, as a general rule, question the findings and conclusions of the domestic courts as regards:
the establishment of the facts of the case;
the interpretation and application of domestic law;
the admissibility and assessment of evidence at the trial;
the substantive fairness of the outcome of a civil dispute;
the guilt or innocence of the accused in criminal proceedings.
-
If you think that rules out the McCann claim then you don't understand what is written there... Imo
I'm on my phone at the moment so can't copy and paste
Third line of your quote... Unless and in so far... Those are the crucial words
-
If you think that rules out the McCann claim then you don't understand what is written there... Imo
I'm on my phone at the moment so can't copy and paste
Unless we know what was in the application we can’t really point to specifics. From the gist of what the supporters have been saying, and the points above, I would say the chances of admissibility and success are extremely slim.
-
Unless we know what was in the application we can’t really point to specifics. From the gist of what the supporters have been saying, and the points above, I would say the chances of admissibility and success are extremely slim.
Supporters have been saying where?.... Cite... On this forum it's basically me citing article 8 to which your point hsd zero relevance... On the previous cases I have seen I would rate the chances very good
-
Supporters have been saying where?.... Cite... On this forum it's basically me citing article 8 to which your point hsd zero relevance... On the previous cases I have seen I would rate the chances very good
If you read the document you will have seen that it usually applies to article 6 but can apply to any article.
-
It's been answerred by Brietta
It was brushed off by Brietta.
-
It was brushed off by Brietta.
In your opinion... Imo brietta provided the answer
-
If you read the document you will have seen that it usually applies to article 6 but can apply to any article.
So... For the third time.. Precisely how will that affect the McCann's application
-
So... For the third time.. Precisely how will that affect the McCann's application
Not at all if they didn't actually make one.
-
Not at all if they didn't actually make one.
Pathetic response
-
Pathetic response
Quote us the case number and we will accept it.
-
Quote us the case number and we will accept it.
Its of no importance whether you accept it or no...its of no importance whether anyone on this form accepts it or not
-
That means that it is not its task to deal with errors of fact or law allegedly committed by a national court unless and in so far as such errors may have infringed rights and freedoms protected by the Convention. It may not itself assess the facts which have led a national court to adopt one decision rather than another. If it were otherwise, the Court would be acting as a court of third or fourth instance, which would be to disregard the limits imposed on its action
-
Thanks.
-
interesting post here from a leading sceptic....... ex solicitor...leader of a very respected(by some) forum........a forum which claims to be an absolute authority on information on this case ...post made march this year
I can claim some knowledge here as I have previously brought a case in the European Court of Human Rights.
You can look it up, it was Hyatt v United Kingdom (1987) and concerned a mother whose child was adopted without her consent.
There are basically FOUR stages in a case reaching the European Court of Human Rights,
First of all, you apply to the EUROPEAN COMMISSION on Human Rights, NOT the Court.
Stage 1 is: is the case ADMISSIBLE? That means, does it meet the basic criteria e.g. does it conform with the time limits, is the matter within the competence of the European Court etc.
If that is successful, the COMMISSION then passes to
Stage 2, which is: does the case have MERIT. In British legal terms, this is akin to asking: is there at least an arguable case?
If the answer to Stage 2 is YES, ONLY THEN does the matter become referred to the COURT, and is no longer dealt with by the COMMISSION.
He really knows his stuff ......or does he
-
interesting post here from a leading sceptic....... ex solicitor...leader of a very respected(by some) forum........a forum which claims to be an absolute authority on information on this case ...post made march this year
I can claim some knowledge here as I have previously brought a case in the European Court of Human Rights.
You can look it up, it was Hyatt v United Kingdom (1987) and concerned a mother whose child was adopted without her consent.
There are basically FOUR stages in a case reaching the European Court of Human Rights,
First of all, you apply to the EUROPEAN COMMISSION on Human Rights, NOT the Court.
Stage 1 is: is the case ADMISSIBLE? That means, does it meet the basic criteria e.g. does it conform with the time limits, is the matter within the competence of the European Court etc.
If that is successful, the COMMISSION then passes to
Stage 2, which is: does the case have MERIT. In British legal terms, this is akin to asking: is there at least an arguable case?
If the answer to Stage 2 is YES, ONLY THEN does the matter become referred to the COURT, and is no longer dealt with by the COMMISSION.
He really knows his stuff ......or does he
I'd say he does.
-
I'd say he does.
Doesn't matter either way. The best source of information on the ECHR is their website.
-
I'd say he does.
he doesnt..hes 20 yrs out of date...the commission was closed in 1998...now cases go straight to the court
-
he doesnt..hes 20 yrs out of date...the commission was closed in 1998...now cases go straight to the court
At the time.
-
At the time.
He's writing this in relation to the McCanns applicaton
-
He's writing this in relation to the McCanns applicaton
My mistake then.
-
This is interesting;
European Court of Human Rights
Questions and Answers.
Are there any procedures that must be followed
beforehand in the national courts?
" Yes. You must have used all the remedies in the State concerned
that could provide redress for the situation you are complaining
about (usually this will mean an application to the appropriate
court, followed by an appeal, where applicable, and even a
further appeal to a higher court such as the supreme court or
constitutional court, if there is one).
" It is not enough merely to make use of these remedies. In so
doing, you must also have actually raised your complaints (the
substance of the Convention violations you are alleging).
https://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/Questions_Answers_ENG.pdf
-
he doesnt..hes 20 yrs out of date...the commission was closed in 1998...now cases go straight to the court
Davel he wrote about a case in 1987.
The European Commission does still exist and does still send some cases to the ECHR.
When countries fail to apply EU law
If national authorities fail to properly implement EU laws, the Commission may launch a formal infringement procedure against the country in question. If the issue is still not settled, the Commission may eventually refer the case to the European Court of Justice.
https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/law-making-process/applying-eu-law_en
-
This is interesting;
European Court of Human Rights
Questions and Answers.
Are there any procedures that must be followed
beforehand in the national courts?
" Yes. You must have used all the remedies in the State concerned
that could provide redress for the situation you are complaining
about (usually this will mean an application to the appropriate
court, followed by an appeal, where applicable, and even a
further appeal to a higher court such as the supreme court or
constitutional court, if there is one).
" It is not enough merely to make use of these remedies. In so
doing, you must also have actually raised your complaints (the
substance of the Convention violations you are alleging).
https://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/Questions_Answers_ENG.pdf
I read that as they must use the remedies but the issues the ECHR are to consider have to be in the submission to the ECHR and not actually raised in the previous court cases.
-
This is interesting;
European Court of Human Rights
Questions and Answers.
Are there any procedures that must be followed
beforehand in the national courts?
" Yes. You must have used all the remedies in the State concerned
that could provide redress for the situation you are complaining
about (usually this will mean an application to the appropriate
court, followed by an appeal, where applicable, and even a
further appeal to a higher court such as the supreme court or
constitutional court, if there is one).
" It is not enough merely to make use of these remedies. In so
doing, you must also have actually raised your complaints (the
substance of the Convention violations you are alleging).
https://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/Questions_Answers_ENG.pdf
The application to have the SC judgeemnt overturned covers that
-
The application to have the SC judgeemnt overturned covers that
Do you have a cite for that Davel?
-
The application to have the SC judgeemnt overturned covers that
Where the lawyers are still arguing that the archiving dispatch is 'verified proof of innocence'?
Just as (this STJ's Section) could not assert that it is not acceptable to assimilate the aforementioned filing order to a verified proof of innocence.
http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/Annulment_request.htm
-
Do you have a cite for that Davel?
Porcine squadron- stand by for takeoff
-
Do you have a cite for that Davel?
I do and have quoted it many times..
Have you not been following
The McCann's raised the presumption of innocence in their final appeal to the SC....and the SC said they were not entitled to it
-
Where the lawyers are still arguing that the archiving dispatch is 'verified proof of innocence'?
Just as (this STJ's Section) could not assert that it is not acceptable to assimilate the aforementioned filing order to a verified proof of innocence.
http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/Annulment_request.htm
You are totally mistaken...the lawyers have never claimed the archiving report is proof of innocence...I can explain it to you if you wish
-
You are totally mistaken...the lawyers have never claimed the archiving report is proof of innocence...I can explain it to you if you wish
Give us a cite instead.
-
Where the lawyers are still arguing that the archiving dispatch is 'verified proof of innocence'?
Just as (this STJ's Section) could not assert that it is not acceptable to assimilate the aforementioned filing order to a verified proof of innocence.
http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/Annulment_request.htm
From the report you quote...
under article 277-2 of the CPP.
As far as the appellants are aware of, the archiving at stake was carried out, in the course of the investigation, because sufficient proof had been gathered that the then arguidos did not commit any facts of a criminal relevance and in any way whatsoever, this conclusion substantiating an archiving for factual reasons,
It is clear the person who translated this is continually using the word proof....instead of evidence....the archiving report is evidence of innocence...but not proof.
-
Give us a cite instead.
Have a look at the cite above....the McCann's claimed that they should be entitled to the presumption of innocence....not that they had been proven innocent
-
You are totally mistaken...the lawyers have never claimed the archiving report is proof of innocence...I can explain it to you if you wish
As far as the appellants are aware of, the archiving at stake was carried out, in the course of the investigation, because sufficient proof had been gathered that the then arguidos did not commit any facts of a criminal relevance
http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/Annulment_request.htm
-
From the report you quote...
under article 277-2 of the CPP.
As far as the appellants are aware of, the archiving at stake was carried out, in the course of the investigation, because sufficient proof had been gathered that the then arguidos did not commit any facts of a criminal relevance and in any way whatsoever, this conclusion substantiating an archiving for factual reasons,
It is clear the person who translated this is continually using the word proof....instead of evidence....the archiving report is evidence of innocence...but not proof.
Upon what precisely do you base that assertion?
-
Upon what precisely do you base that assertion?
Which assertion...there are two
-
Which assertion...there are two
Upon what precisely do you base those assertions ?
-
Upon what precisely do you base those assertions ?
Davel seems to be claiming that his translation is more accurate than the one provided by Anne Guedes. It will be interesting to see the evidence on which he bases his assertion.
-
Davel seems to be claiming that his translation is more accurate than the one provided by Anne Guedes. It will be interesting to see the evidence on which he bases his assertion.
when I first joined the forum I saw taht anne as a memeber here had translated the archiving report as "prove their innocence"....i pointed out to her that the report used the word comprovar rather than provar....she then agreed that the correct translation was demonstrate innocence....rather than prove innocence.
so i have corrected anne once....i think the same thing has happened with the SC judgeemnt....with the word proof being used in trnsaltion instead of evidence
-
when I first joined the forum I saw taht anne as a memeber here had translated the archiving report as "prove their innocence"....i pointed out to her that the report used the word comprovar rather than provar....she then agreed that the correct translation was demonstrate innocence....rather than prove innocence.
so i have corrected anne once....i think the same thing has happened with the SC judgeemnt....with the word proof being used in trnsaltion instead of evidence
Why was Anne translating the archiving report, I winder, when it's already been done in the files. Please note this is the McCanns request for annulment, not the SC judgement.
If you 'think' it 'might' be wrong, that's up to you. If you want to convince others, present some evidence,
-
Why was Anne translating the archiving report, I winder, when it's already been done in the files. Please note this is the McCanns request for annulment, not the SC judgement.
If you 'think' it 'might' be wrong, that's up to you. If you want to convince others, present some evidence,
I dont see the wird definitive at the bottom of page 5....has Anne paraphrasef
-
I dont see the wird definitive at the bottom of page 5....has Anne paraphrasef
Sorry, I don't follow. Is that evidence of something? Page 5 of what?
-
Sorry, I don't follow. Is that evidence of something? Page 5 of what?
On the link you posted with your quote.. I'll repost it
-
Where the lawyers are still arguing that the archiving dispatch is 'verified proof of innocence'?
Just as (this STJ's Section) could not assert that it is not acceptable to assimilate the aforementioned filing order to a verified proof of innocence.
http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/Annulment_request.htm
From Anne's translation the verified proof of innocence is from page 5 but I don't see ...the verified...in the Portuguese... Is Anne paraphrasing
I've looked again... Anne does seem to be paraphrasing... So it is far from an accurate translation
-
From Anne's translation the verified proof of innocence is from page 5 but I don't see ...the verified...in the Portuguese... Is Anne paraohrasing
Are you expecting literal translations? I think you would find a literal translation would make no sense in English. All translators paraphrase in order to convey the meaning of a text.
http://translatorthoughts.com/2015/06/translation-techniques-paraphrasing/
The important point is that the McCann's lawyers are arguing that the archiving dispatch can be seen as proof of their innocence.
arquivamento equiparavel a comprovação de inocentacao
archiving comparable to proof of innocence
-
Are you expecting literal translations? I think you would find a literal translation would make no sense in English. All translators paraphrase in order to convey the meaning of a text.
http://translatorthoughts.com/2015/06/translation-techniques-paraphrasing/
The important point is that the McCann's lawyers are arguing that the archiving dispatch can be seen as proof of their innocence.
arquivamento equiparavel a comprovação de inocentacao
archiving comparable to proof of innocence
comparable to is not the same as definitive... So we cannot rely in the translations as being accurate... You asked for proof and I have supplied it....
From what I have seen the McCann's claim the presumption of innocence...and the archiving report as evidence of innocence..... Which it is
-
From the report you quote...
under article 277-2 of the CPP.
As far as the appellants are aware of, the archiving at stake was carried out, in the course of the investigation, because sufficient proof had been gathered that the then arguidos did not commit any facts of a criminal relevance and in any way whatsoever, this conclusion substantiating an archiving for factual reasons,
It is clear the person who translated this is continually using the word proof....instead of evidence....the archiving report is evidence of innocence...but not proof.
I would concur with that davel. When we carried the daily trial transcripts I found it necessary to improve some of the translations routinely. I agree that in this particular case however, the word should have been evidence and not proof.
-
I would concur with that davel. When we carried the daily trial transcripts I found it necessary to improve some of the translations routinely. I agree that in this particular case however, the word should have been evidence and not proof.
The big problem is that some people think translation is just word for word substitution .
-
I would concur with that davel. When we carried the daily trial transcripts I found it necessary to improve some of the translations routinely. I agree that in this particular case however, the word should have been evidence and not proof.
You wouldn’t have had the translations to correct if Anne hadn’t been so generous with her time John. Your post comes across as rather ungrateful.
-
The big problem is that some people think translation is just word for word substitution .
I certainly don't think that... But again the word comprovar has been used not provar.... As in the archiving despatch.
The problems arise when translators put in the own words and change the meaning....I don't see that... Verified proof of innocence... Is anywhere near a correct translation
-
The big problem is that some people think translation is just word for word substitution .
I totally agree, the entire sentence has to be translated in order to give proper meaning to any text. Unfortunately, translating text can never be an exact science as languages differ so much.
-
You wouldn’t have had the translations to correct if Anne hadn’t been so generous with her time John. Your post comes across as rather ungrateful.
Not at all. I was extremely grateful to Anne for the time she spent on the trial. She attended court daily and recorded everything which was said. She took photographs which even the press and media didn't get and all of this she did freely and at her own expense. What you do not realise however is the amount of work that was done behind the scenes by both Anne and myself in getting the translations into a form suitable for publication. Some reports were reviewed several times by both of us in order to get as close as possible to the original meaning.
Unfortunately, the translations produced after the first instance trial were not overseen by me and so I cannot comment on their validity. I'm sure anyone reading them will notice the difference in the English language used since a Portuguese translator can never produce a perfect English version and vice versa.
-
Not at all. I was extremely grateful to Anne for the time she spent on the trial. She attended court daily and recorded everything which was said. She took photographs which even the press and media didn't get and all of this she did freely and at her own expense. What you do not realise however is the amount of work that was done behind the scenes by both Anne and myself in getting the translations into a form suitable for publication. Some reports were reviewed several times by both of us in order to get as close as possible to the original meaning.
Unfortunately, the translations produced after the first instance trial were not overseen by me and so I cannot comment on their validity. I'm sure anyone reading them will notice the difference in the English language used since a Portuguese translator can never produce a perfect English version and vice versa.
Thank you for clarifying how much good work Anne actually did.
-
Thank you for clarifying how much good work Anne actually did.
I should add that interpreting and translating ordinary text is one thing but legalese is a nightmare at the best of times and translating Portuguese legalese into English legalese is the ultimate nightmare but Anne did a remarkable job.
-
I should add that interpreting and translating ordinary text is one thing but legalese is a nightmare at the best of times and translating Portuguese legalese into English legalese is the ultimate nightmare but Anne did a remarkable job.
I think we all appreciate what Anne and others have done to help us gain a better understanding of the case
-
I certainly don't think that... But again the word comprovar has been used not provar.... As in the archiving despatch.
The problems arise when translators put in the own words and change the meaning....I don't see that... Verified proof of innocence... Is anywhere near a correct translation
arquivamento equiparavel a comprovação de inocentacao
means;
archiving comparable to proof of innocence
-
arquivamento equiparavel a comprovação de inocentacao
means;
archiving comparable to proof of innocence
So we have moved to comparable.... Why have the used compravaceo rather than provaceo... Can you explain the difference
-
So we have moved to comparable.... Why have the used compravaceo rather than provaceo... Can you explain the difference
I know neither of them have anything to do with evidence; evidência
-
I know neither of them have anything to do with evidence; evidência
In the archiving report comprovar had been translated as demonstrate innocence... Not prove innocence
-
You wouldn’t have had the translations to correct if Anne hadn’t been so generous with her time John. Your post comes across as rather ungrateful.
With all due respect to those concerned it comes across to me more like hiring Michelangelo to paint the chapel ceiling then bringing in a primary school slap and daub class to suggest improvements. Or if you prefer the halt leading the blind.
It could be sorted once and for all by davel or John paying good cash money for the transcripts to be translated by an independently verified translator acceptable to both sides. Nah silly idea you’d stand a better chance of finding Dodo doo doos.
Not that all this dicking about with semantics of language and interpretation will have any effect because
the ECtHR have no powers to overturn any judgement by national courts.
The idea of there miraculously being a retrial is well….check out res judicata.
The whole thing is a dead duck except for the McCanns maybe being awarded a few grand payable by the state of Portugal.
It will not affect Sr Amaral.
Quelle bummer.
-
In the archiving report comprovar had been translated as demonstrate innocence... Not prove innocence
Please provide cites showing the Portuguese and the English translation of it, because I think you are mistaken.
-
With all due respect to those concerned it comes across to me more like hiring Michelangelo to paint the chapel ceiling then bringing in a primary school slap and daub class to suggest improvements. Or if you prefer the halt leading the blind.
It could be sorted once and for all by davel or John paying good cash money for the transcripts to be translated by an independently verified translator acceptable to both sides. Nah silly idea you’d stand a better chance of finding Dodo doo doos.
Not that all this dicking about with semantics of language and interpretation will have any effect because
the ECtHR have no powers to overturn any judgement by national courts.
The idea of there miraculously being a retrial is well….check out res judicata.
The whole thing is a dead duck except for the McCanns maybe being awarded a few grand payable by the state of Portugal.
It will not affect Sr Amaral.
Quelle bummer.
All in your rather limited opinion... Imo..
The ECHR judgment if favourable.. As I expect... Will have far reaching effects
-
All in your rather limited opinion... Imo..
The ECHR judgment if favourable.. As I expect... Will have far reaching effects
Indeed it will, and sorely in need of.
-
All in your rather limited opinion... Imo..
The ECHR judgment if favourable.. As I expect... Will have far reaching effects
I fear it will never reach that stage and has probably been rejected. Seeking to exploit ones human rights after denying those same rights to your child must be the most crass and callous thing I've ever come across.
-
When it comes down to it, the only opinion that will count is that of the ECHR judges.
Everything else is hot air and wishful thinking.
-
With all due respect to those concerned it comes across to me more like hiring Michelangelo to paint the chapel ceiling then bringing in a primary school slap and daub class to suggest improvements. Or if you prefer the halt leading the blind.
It could be sorted once and for all by davel or John paying good cash money for the transcripts to be translated by an independently verified translator acceptable to both sides. Nah silly idea you’d stand a better chance of finding Dodo doo doos.
Not that all this dicking about with semantics of language and interpretation will have any effect because
the ECtHR have no powers to overturn any judgement by national courts.
The idea of there miraculously being a retrial is well….check out res judicata.
The whole thing is a dead duck except for the McCanns maybe being awarded a few grand payable by the state of Portugal.
It will not affect Sr Amaral.
Quelle bummer.
Don't knock it until you have tried it :) ... in my opinion any 'restoration' of the type of Portuguese justice which was meted out to Madeleine's parents would be an improvement ... or more likely should never have been started just as a different book should have been written.
(http://i.huffpost.com/gen/741061/thumbs/o-RESTORATION-570.jpg?4)
https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/octogenarians-hilarious-f_n_1821389
I think you are wrong that there will be no knock on effect to Amaral should Kate and Gerry be successful in the European Court of Human Rights ... as I think they may very well be.
In my opinion should Madeleine's parents win their case it will be an internationally public demonstration that in judging one man's 'right' to trample on the rights of others the Portuguese judges have brought their and his native land into disrepute.
No mean feat! and it will probably be a lot simpler to restore the elderly lady's work on that fresco than to restore Portugal's reputation in the eyes of the world if and when the case is found against them.
-
I fear it will never reach that stage and has probably been rejected. Seeking to exploit ones human rights after denying those same rights to your child must be the most crass and callous thing I've ever come across.
On what grounds do you feel it has been rejected.....have you looked at the criteria ...I don't see anything in the slightest callous in their decision to go to the ECHR...and I'm sure the judges at the ECHR will not agree with you
-
When it comes down to it, the only opinion that will count is that of the ECHR judges.
Everything else is hot air and wishful thinking.
That is a perfect response to angelos post.... But by looking at previous cases it's possible to make an informed judgement
-
I fear it will never reach that stage and has probably been rejected. Seeking to exploit ones human rights after denying those same rights to your child must be the most crass and callous thing I've ever come across.
Sorry, who are you calling crass and callous?
-
Don't knock it until you have tried it :) ... in my opinion any 'restoration' of the type of Portuguese justice which was meted out to Madeleine's parents would be an improvement ... or more likely should never have been started just as a different book should have been written.
(http://i.huffpost.com/gen/741061/thumbs/o-RESTORATION-570.jpg?4)
https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/octogenarians-hilarious-f_n_1821389
I think you are wrong that there will be no knock on effect to Amaral should Kate and Gerry be successful in the European Court of Human Rights ... as I think they may very well be.
In my opinion should Madeleine's parents win their case it will be an internationally public demonstration that in judging one man's 'right' to trample on the rights of others the Portuguese judges have brought their and his native land into disrepute.
No mean feat! and it will probably be a lot simpler to restore the elderly lady's work on that fresco than to restore Portugal's reputation in the eyes of the world if and when the case is found against them.
You being from Ecosse have no doubt heard of String Driven Thing.
From their "Regent Street Incident" : "I have heard it all before said a body from the floor........"
-
All in your rather limited opinion... Imo..
The ECHR judgment if favourable.. As I expect... Will have far reaching effects
So you keep saying.
Tell us precisely what and how in your opinion.
eta
Yeah if an' if the dawg hadn't stopped running he would have caught the hare.
an' if a sewing machine had bigger wheels it might be a car
any more ifs and buts?
-
You being from Ecosse have no doubt heard of String Driven Thing.
From their "Regent Street Incident" : "I have heard it all before said a body from the floor........"
What we have is sceptics posting opinion... Such as Angelo... Without any evidence to support it. Sceptics claim the, application will or had been rejected but never suply any reasoned argument to support their view
-
So you keep saying.
Tell us precisely what and how in your opinion.
What do you think the effect wil be if it is judged that amarals book has violated the McCann's human rights and that the Portuguese courts, have supported this violation
From what I have, seen the court will look at what evidence amaral has, to make these claims..
What do you think the effect will be if it's shown there us no evidence to support these claims...
From what I have, seen the court will look if amaral has presented a, balanced view of the evidence
All of that does not look good for amaral and portugal.. Imo
-
From what I have seen the ECHR will look at the, evidence that supports the allegations made by amaral..... So for the first time the evidence against the McCann's, will be assessed by a court... The McCann's must feel confident Re the evidence to go to the ECHR
-
From what I have seen the ECHR will look at the, evidence that supports the allegations made by amaral..... So for the first time the evidence against the McCann's, will be assessed by a court... The McCann's must feel confident Re the evidence to go to the ECHR
There is a lot of "from what I have seen" but no mention of precisely what it is you have seen.
First off what is the ECtHR being asked to rule on? Do you know? Have you had sight of the application?
The Supreme Court can only rule on points of law not points of fact. Points of fact which were dealt with by the court of appeal. Even the judge in the court of first instance was at pains to point out the veracity of the content of Sr Amaral's book was not being tried. Given that what was being tried in your opinion?
So the ECtHR will look at which of the ECHR Articles holds sway and was this ignored by the Supreme Court.
That is anybody's guess.
-
There is a lot of "from what I have seen" but no mention of precisely what it is you have seen.
First off what is the ECtHR being asked to rule on? Do you know? Have you had sight of the application?
The Supreme Court can only rule on points of law not points of fact. Points of fact which were dealt with by the court of appeal. Even the judge in the court of first instance was at pains to point out the veracity of the content of Sr Amaral's book was not being tried. Given that what was being tried in your opinion?
So the ECtHR will look at which of the ECHR Articles holds sway and was this ignored by the Supreme Court.
That is anybody's guess.
Bib ,this is my understanding too , of what they will do if in fact the application is accepted .
-
There is a lot of "from what I have seen" but no mention of precisely what it is you have seen.
First off what is the ECtHR being asked to rule on? Do you know? Have you had sight of the application?
The Supreme Court can only rule on points of law not points of fact. Points of fact which were dealt with by the court of appeal. Even the judge in the court of first instance was at pains to point out the veracity of the content of Sr Amaral's book was not being tried. Given that what was being tried in your opinion?
So the ECtHR will look at which of the ECHR Articles holds sway and was this ignored by the Supreme Court.
That is anybody's guess.
I have posrted quite a lot on the forum to support my argument unlike others. The SC judgeemnt referred to a balance between freedom of speech and the right to reputaion...article 10 vs article 8........as that and the presumption of innocence is what the SC ruled on then its obvious that this is what the application will deal with. Ther is a whole list of cases ...article 10 vs article 8 on the ECHR website explaining how thw ECHR balance the two rights...again ive posted the link several times.
the SC did not look at the evidence...from what I have seen from the links provided the ECHR will look at the factual basis on which amaral makes his calims and if they are reasonable...they are obviously not...
it may be a guess to those who have not looked at the relevant law and past cases as I have done...im not guessing....im using informed opinon...do abit of reserach and you will probably agree with me
-
Bib ,this is my understanding too , of what they will do if in fact the application is accepted .
again...can you give me a reason why it will not be acceoted or are you just guessing. The post you posted here from CMOMM was basically laughable...it posted two cases ...neither relavent in the slightest
-
Ageyevy v. Russia
18 April 2013
In 2008 the applicants, a married couple, adopted two small children (a boy and a girl).
Following an incident in March 2009 in which the boy was badly burnt at home and had
to go to hospital for treatment, the authorities took the children into care as they
suspected abuse. The mother complained in particular that the Russian courts had failed
to protect her reputation in defamation proceedings she had instituted in respect of
media reports describing her alleged ill-treatment of her son.
The Court held that there had been a violation of Article 8 (right to respect for private
life) of the Convention on account of the Russian courts’ failure to protect the mother’s
right to reputation in the defamation proceedings against the media company concerned,
as it was not convinced that the reasons advanced by the courts regarding the protection
of the freedom of expression of the media company had outweighed the mother’s rights
to have her reputation and right to the presumption of innocence safeguarded. It was in
particular not evident that the domestic courts in the defamation proceedings had
attached any importance to the right to the presumption of innocence. Nor had they
examined closely whether the journalists had acted in good faith and had provided
reliable and precise information in accordance with the ethics of journalism. Moreover,
even though nothing in the case-file suggested that the journalists had not been acting
in good faith, they had obviously failed to take the necessary steps to report the incident
in an objective and rigorous manner, trying instead either to exaggerate or oversimplify
the underlying reality.
there you are again
-
The application to have the SC judgeemnt overturned covers that
The ECHR is not an appeals court and does not overturn rulings made in national courts. The McCanns case will be against the state of Portugal, not against Gonçalo Amaral or the book or the other 3 defendants.
-
The ECHR is not an appeals court and does not overturn rulings made in national courts. The McCanns case will be against the state of Portugal, not against Gonçalo Amaral or the book or the other 3 defendants.
Then why is GA waiting to hear the outcome before suing the McCanns?
-
The ECHR is not an appeals court and does not overturn rulings made in national courts. The McCanns case will be against the state of Portugal, not against Gonçalo Amaral or the book or the other 3 defendants.
I think most understand that...weve moved on a bit....it may not be against amaral but the courts decision will involve an investigation into amarals claims and the veracity of them...as there is basically no evidence to support his claims I cant see the ECHR supporting his rights under article 10 as teh SC did
-
Then whay is GA waiting to hear the outcome before suing the McCanns?
Maybe he's waiting to see if they are worth suing. No good going after someone without 2 beans to rub together.
-
I have posrted quite a lot on the forum to support my argument unlike others. The SC judgeemnt referred to a balance between freedom of speech and the right to reputaion...article 10 vs article 8........as that and the presumption of innocence is what the SC ruled on then its obvious that this is what the application will deal with. Ther is a whole list of cases ...article 10 vs article 8 on the ECHR website explaining how thw ECHR balance the two rights...again ive posted the link several times.
the SC did not look at the evidence...from what I have seen from the links provided the ECHR will look at the factual basis on which amaral makes his calims and if they are reasonable...they are obviously not...
it may be a guess to those who have not looked at the relevant law and past cases as I have done...im not guessing....im using informed opinon...do abit of reserach and you will probably agree with me
Is this the same informed opinion and research you used when you insisted that Gonçalo Amaral would not be able to appeal against the ruling which awarded 500.000 € + interest to the McCanns.
Is it obvious from reading the acordão that the SC did examine the evidence when making their decision and they also used rulings by the ECHR to support it.
-
Is this the same informed opinion and research you used when you insisted that Gonçalo Amaral would not be able to appeal against the ruling which awarded 500.000 € + interest to the McCanns.
Is it obvious from reading the acordão that the SC did examine the evidence when making their decision and they also used rulings by the ECHR to support it.
please stick to the facts...I never claimed that...you are obviously confused...cite required or remove
-
The ECHR is not an appeals court and does not overturn rulings made in national courts. The McCanns case will be against the state of Portugal, not against Gonçalo Amaral or the book or the other 3 defendants.
That's what I understand . So why did the Sun make up lies leading their readers astray ?
-
That's what I understand . So why did the Sun make up lies leading their readers astray ?
the same reason they have made up lies re others over the last 20 yeras...you obvioulsy havent noticed
-
Then why is GA waiting to hear the outcome before suing the McCanns?
Have you asked him personally if he is waiting for the outcome? Cases like this if accepted can take up to 7 years and this one would in no way be considered urgent. That's a long wait, I'm sure that he has better things to do with his life.
One journalist in Portugal received a favourable verdict this year from the ECHR 5 years after he made his claim. The ECHR ruled in favour of his right to freedom of expression and opinion when convicted of defamation, after writing that the ex-president of the Supreme Court, Noronha de Nascimento, represented the dark side of justice.
-
Have you asked him personally if he is waiting for the outcome? Cases like this if accepted can take up to 7 years and this one would in no way be considered urgent. That's a long wait, I'm sure that he has better things to do with his life.
One journalist in Portugal received a favourable verdict this year from the ECHR 5 years after he made his claim. The ECHR ruled in favour of his right to freedom of expression and opinion when convicted of defamation, after writing that the ex-president of the Supreme Court, Noronha de Nascimento, represented the dark side of justice.
yes I read about that case....and the verdict fitted entirely with my analysis of the balance between 8 and 10...no surprises there
-
Have you asked him personally if he is waiting for the outcome? Cases like this if accepted can take up to 7 years and this one would in no way be considered urgent. That's a long wait, I'm sure that he has better things to do with his life.
One journalist in Portugal received a favourable verdict this year from the ECHR 5 years after he made his claim. The ECHR ruled in favour of his right to freedom of expression and opinion when convicted of defamation, after writing that the ex-president of the Supreme Court, Noronha de Nascimento, represented the dark side of justice.
I thought someone reported that Amaral was waiting for the outcome. Not me.
-
I thought someone reported that Amaral was waiting for the outcome. Not me.
angelo claimed a source cose to amaral had said this....nothing in reality to support it
-
angelo claimed a source cose to amaral had said this....nothing in reality to support it
That is right I remember that now, it was Angelo.
-
Then why is GA waiting to hear the outcome before suing the McCanns?
Who told you that?
-
That's what I understand . So why did the Sun make up lies leading their readers astray ?
That's the press for you!
Back in the 1960s the Daily Express used to routinely print opposing headlines on the same long running topic, so when it was resolved the appropriate headline would be reprinted with the subtitle "The Express was right again". It rather reflects the attitude that prevailed wrt to its readership. Baaa baaa.
-
That's the press for you!
Back in the 1960s the Daily Express used to routinely print opposing headlines on the same long running topic, so when it was resolved the appropriate headline would be reprinted with the subtitle "The Express was right again". It rather reflects the attitude that prevailed wrt to its readership. Baaa baaa.
Some Internet Posters employ the same tactic.
-
Who told you that?
Angelo posted that information.
-
Angelo posted that information.
So that really is, proof .....proof that angelos posts should be taken with a, pinch of salt
-
So that really is, proof .....proof that angelos posts should be taken with a, pinch of salt
With the caveat,along with all others.
-
With the caveat,along with all others.
All others includes yours
-
All others includes yours
And yours too Davel?
-
please stick to the facts...I never claimed that...you are obviously confused...cite required or remove
I think this pretty much covers your cite Dave
We have been told that much of the evidence has been submitted to the judge in private. From amarals witnesses it looks as though HE has to prove his comments are justified and supported by evidence..we know he will not be able to do this...all the evidence he believed.. the dna and the dogs has been discredited...amarals whole demeanor is one of a beaten man...you believe what you want...I think its obvious amaral has lost
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=4530.msg164459#msg164459
-
All others includes yours
Oh! yes,I'm under no illusion that any post on here makes thruppence worth of difference,unlike some.
-
I think this pretty much covers your cite Dave
We have been told that much of the evidence has been submitted to the judge in private. From amarals witnesses it looks as though HE has to prove his comments are justified and supported by evidence..we know he will not be able to do this...all the evidence he believed.. the dna and the dogs has been discredited...amarals whole demeanor is one of a beaten man...you believe what you want...I think its obvious amaral has lost
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=4530.msg164459#msg164459
This is what montclsir posted...
Is this the same informed opinion and research you used when you insisted that Gonçalo Amaral would not be able to appeal against the ruling which awarded 500.000 € + interest to the McCann
So where in my post does it say amaral can't appeal... Montclair was 100% wrong
-
I think this pretty much covers your cite Dave
We have been told that much of the evidence has been submitted to the judge in private. From amarals witnesses it looks as though HE has to prove his comments are justified and supported by evidence..we know he will not be able to do this...all the evidence he believed.. the dna and the dogs has been discredited...amarals whole demeanor is one of a beaten man...you believe what you want...I think its obvious amaral has lost
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=4530.msg164459#msg164459
I was absolutely spot on... Amaral did lose that case...
Now find what I predicted for the appeal
-
Oh! yes,I'm under no illusion that any post on here makes thruppence worth of difference,unlike some.
Have you been posting on the sun comments recently
-
I was absolutely spot on... Amaral did lose that case...
Now find what I predicted for the appeal
I think we are all aware of the facts in this case...amaral is toast as I have said before...if he had a case against the McCanns he would have started things by now...if you can't give any details your comments can only be viewed as pure speculation. You have posted several times that you could not see how the judge could make a judgement when Maddie's fate was not known...you were wrong on that so unfortunately your track record is not too good
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=6269.4095
Perhaps your track record is not so good Davel.
-
I think we are all aware of the facts in this case...amaral is toast as I have said before...if he had a case against the McCanns he would have started things by now...if you can't give any details your comments can only be viewed as pure speculation. You have posted several times that you could not see how the judge could make a judgement when Maddie's fate was not known...you were wrong on that so unfortunately your track record is not too good
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=6269.4095
Perhaps your track record is not so good Davel.
Read it again.. It's, a post saying amaral would not sue the McCann's... And to date I'm absolutely correct again
-
Read it again.. It's, a post saying amaral would not sue the McCann's... And to date I'm absolutely correct again
It is also a post which says "amaral is toast". Amaral won so he wasn't toast. You also said they judge couldn't make a judgement when Maddie's fate was not known....they did. You were wrong on that too Davel.
-
It is also a post which says "amaral is toast". Amaral won so he wasn't toast. You also said they judge couldn't make a judgement when Maddie's fate was not known....they did. You were wrong on that too Davel.
You are taking posts out of context... If you want to spend your whole Sunday morning trying to go through all my posts to make a, point you seem to have an unhealthy obsession
-
You are taking posts out of context... If you want to spend your whole Sunday morning trying to go through all my posts to make a, point you seem to have an unhealthy obsession
That would probably make two of us then Davel.
Incidentally I have found a post of yours where you say the ECHR cannot overturn the SC ruling, something you have claimed can be done recently.
-
Have you been posting on the sun comments recently
And? I make comments as is my want,It'll not make a difference though will it?
-
That would probably make two of us then Davel.
Incidentally I have found a post of yours where you say the ECHR cannot overturn the SC ruling, something you have claimed can be done recently.
The ECHR cannot overturn the SC judgement... And I've never claimed it can.... So cite
-
The ECHR cannot overturn the SC judgement... And I've never claimed it can.... So cite
I think you have been rumbled.
-
I think you have been rumbled.
no i absolutely havent...its egg on face time for you if you think I have
-
I think you have been rumbled.
Wrong again.
-
Wrong again.
When a poster makes claims which are proven wrong with cites it generally means they are losing the argument.
-
What we have is sceptics posting opinion... Such as Angelo... Without any evidence to support it. Sceptics claim the, application will or had been rejected but never suply any reasoned argument to support their view
So you have provided evidence of your opinion about an alledged abduction? I would LOVE to read that.
The ECHR deals only with countries who breach certain acts. So forget about Amaral being toast.
Portugal did NOT prosecute the McCanns for any crime, they were suspected of at one time(they may well still be), therefore, the judge was NOT ruling against them being innocent or guilty of anything. The judge rules that Amaral had the right to freedom of expression. Full stop!
It was the McCanns who brought a case against Sr Amaral in a BLAZE of publicity- which they have courted since day one! It was THEY who refused to cooperate fully with the investigation to establish any involvement or not if that is the case-on their part.
So the specila bits to remember is: IT WAS THE MCCANNS, not Sr Amaral, NOT the SC who started this farce.
Now to cover the IFs bit- If they were charged with something and the courts did not allow them a right to a private life... well thing is, when you are charged with something you are going to go to court- in public place for all to see- so private life doesn't count does it?
And second IF - If They were charged with anything- the judge in court would soon pick up on dodgy prosecuters not selling their tale with the presumption that the McCanns were innocent. So, back to the 'McCanns were not charged with anything'
With the daft notion of the McCanns right to a private life- you must be joking -it was splattered all over the Sun sleaze newspaper, to which Kate enjoys a nice relationship with.OMG some of those headlines!
-
Does GM going to the press or the press reporting on him now strengthen a right to privacy case?
-
So you have provided evidence of your opinion about an alledged abduction? I would LOVE to read that.
The ECHR deals only with countries who breach certain acts. So forget about Amaral being toast.
Portugal did NOT prosecute the McCanns for any crime, they were suspected of at one time(they may well still be), therefore, the judge was NOT ruling against them being innocent or guilty of anything. The judge rules that Amaral had the right to freedom of expression. Full stop!
It was the McCanns who brought a case against Sr Amaral in a BLAZE of publicity- which they have courted since day one! It was THEY who refused to cooperate fully with the investigation to establish any involvement or not if that is the case-on their part.
So the specila bits to remember is: IT WAS THE MCCANNS, not Sr Amaral, NOT the SC who started this farce.
Now to cover the IFs bit- If they were charged with something and the courts did not allow them a right to a private life... well thing is, when you are charged with something you are going to go to court- in public place for all to see- so private life doesn't count does it?
And second IF - If They were charged with anything- the judge in court would soon pick up on dodgy prosecuters not selling their tale with the presumption that the McCanns were innocent. So, back to the 'McCanns were not charged with anything'
With the daft notion of the McCanns right to a private life- you must be joking -it was splattered all over the Sun sleaze newspaper, to which Kate enjoys a nice relationship with.OMG some of those headlines!
Agreed, the key point from the ECHR POV is that this action was instigated by the McCanns. No one was taken them to court.
-
Does GM going to the press or the press reporting on him now strengthen a right to privacy case?
Hmm what about the timing? more money for the 'search'.? Why not do this on his daighters anniversary and why not get someone who didn't leave their children alone every night. There are planty of loving dads who,miss their daughter. My dad for one! = my sister. Many other dads of murdered children must suffer greatly. Gerry is still thinking his daughter is alive... where is this claim to private life when it is on the BBC...
-
I think you have been rumbled.
Cite
-
When a poster makes claims which are proven wrong with cites it generally means they are losing the argument.
No cite has-been provided.... Re the overturn of the SC judgement... Nor the that I am supposed to have claimed amaral could not appeal... Provide cites if you are going to make this claim
-
I was absolutely spot on... Amaral did lose that case...
Now find what I predicted for the appeal
Are you suggesting it was more than one case?
-
It really is a compliment how so many sceptics try so hard to prove me wrong
-
It really is a compliment how so many sceptics try so hard to prove me wrong
We don’t try.
-
We don’t try.
You and others have tried very hard this morning... But still no cite
-
We don’t try.
You fail miserably anyway.
-
You fail miserably anyway.
You can't fail if you don't try.
Anyone would think this was a competition. Maybe it is for some.
-
Hmm what about the timing? more money for the 'search'.? Why not do this on his daighters anniversary and why not get someone who didn't leave their children alone every night. There are planty of loving dads who,miss their daughter. My dad for one! = my sister. Many other dads of murdered children must suffer greatly. Gerry is still thinking his daughter is alive... where is this claim to private life when it is on the BBC...
the claim under article 8 is defamation...not privacy..
-
the claim under article 8 is defamation...not privacy..
He shoots, he misses...
“Right to respect for private and family life”
-
He shoots, he misses...
“Right to respect for private and family life”
it covers defamation too...more egg on your face...i will provide the cite
When examining the necessity of an interference in a democratic society in the interests
of the ‘protection of the reputation or rights of others’, the Court may be required to
verify whether the domestic authorities struck a fair balance when protecting two values
guaranteed by the Convention which may come into conflict with each other in certain
cases, namely, on the one hand, freedom of expression protected by Article 10 and, on
the other, the right to respect for private life enshrined in Article 8” (Axel Sp
https://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/FS_Reputation_ENG.pdf
-
Before proceeding with the case, a brief overview of the evolution concerning the right to reputation is in order. Art. 8 ECHR does not explicitly mention a right to honour or reputation, unlike for instance art. 17 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Art. 10 ECHR does refer to reputation as one of the legitimate aims that might justify interference with freedom of expression. However, it does not do so by granting rights status to reputation, instead speaking of “protection of the reputation or rights of others”. Thus, it is not surprising that in the first defamation case brought under art. 10 ECHR, Lingens v. Austria (8 July 1986), the Court denied the Government’s argument that the case concerned a conflict between Convention rights, holding that “there is … no need in this instance to read Article 10 (art. 10) in the light of Article 8 (art. 8)”. However, over the following decades, matters slowly changed and with the art. 10 case of Chauvy and others v. France (29 June 2004) and the art. 8 case of Pfeifer v. Austria, the right to protection of reputation was established as a Convention right under art. 8 ECHR. From Pfeifer: “a person’s right to protection of his or her reputation is encompassed by Article 8 as being part of the right to respect for private life”.
https://strasbourgobservers.com/2010/11/01/the-right-to-reputation-under-the-european-convention-on-human-rights/
-
He shoots, he misses...
“Right to respect for private and family life”
if you do not realise article 8 covers defamation you really shouldnt be on the pitch
-
if you do not realise article 8 covers defamation you really shouldnt be on the pitch
Article 8 is about private life and hence any judgement based on article 8 has to take that into account as the SC did.
-
Article 8 is about private life and hence any judgement based on article 8 has to take that into account as the SC did.
You are, absolutely wrong... As previous rulings have shown
Those in the public eye still have the right to reputation
-
You are, absolutely wrong... As previous rulings have shown
Those in the public eye still have the right to reputation
What reputation would this be then? I mean you must have evidence of their reputation being 'damaged' by Sr Amaral in his book? So a nice wee cite will suffice. And SC would be bothered much about their reputation because...?
You do not have the right to privacy when being investigated by the police- so let us go back to remind ourselves what this is about.
Sr Amaral wrote a book with a THESIS on the investigation which was being carried out- the parents were suspected of not telling the truth about certain aspects of their statements.
Being investigated with in a 'public media circus' whom the MCANNS contacted that night! was difficult to blame Amaral/PJ or SC. They were instructed NOT to talk to the press- they ignored that advice and now, well.... spitting dummies out of prams is a bit pathetic.
So just for the record; Sr Amaral and the SC did not deny the McCanns anything. HENCE why they lost!
-
I think it fair to say that McCanns certainly have a reputation , even if it's not one of their own choosing 8)-)))
-
When a poster makes claims which are proven wrong with cites it generally means they are losing the argument.
You are forgetting the 37.0909° N, 8.7591° W factor. 8(0(*
-
What reputation would this be then? I mean you must have evidence of their reputation being 'damaged' by Sr Amaral in his book? So a nice wee cite will suffice. And SC would be bothered much about their reputation because...?
You do not have the right to privacy when being investigated by the police- so let us go back to remind ourselves what this is about.
Sr Amaral wrote a book with a THESIS on the investigation which was being carried out- the parents were suspected of not telling the truth about certain aspects of their statements.
Being investigated with in a 'public media circus' whom the MCANNS contacted that night! was difficult to blame Amaral/PJ or SC. They were instructed NOT to talk to the press- they ignored that advice and now, well.... spitting dummies out of prams is a bit pathetic.
So just for the record; Sr Amaral and the SC did not deny the McCanns anything. HENCE why they lost!
Have a look at some of the other ECHR cases ...accusing someone of a criminal act is damaging to reputation
-
Have a look at some of the other ECHR cases ...accusing someone of a criminal act is damaging to reputation
They were being investigated! They were suspects. They invited the media. They were told not to contact the media or talk about the case.
They shot themselves in the foot, and now hobble along complaining someone gave them a loaded gun.
This is to do with SC ruling. You need to cite exactly the bits in that SC ruling which the ECHR will find in McCann favour.
No point in citing other cases, as they are not this case. Stick to this case and keep it simple.
-
Have a look at some of the other ECHR cases ...accusing someone of a criminal act is damaging to reputation
But of course that isn’t what the book did.
You have to ask yourself a question.
Did the police at a certain point in the investigation believe that Madeleine had accidentally died and K&G has hidden her body?
If you believe that then a book stating that is factual and not libellous.
-
But of course that isn’t what the book did.
You have to ask yourself a question.
Did the police at a certain point in the investigation believe that Madeleine had accidentally died and K&G has hidden her body?
If you believe that then a book stating that is factual and not libellous.
It’s not for the ECHR to determine that tho?
Isn’t it that the complaint is against the SC of Portugal for not understanding where they went wrong ?
-
But of course that isn’t what the book did.
You have to ask yourself a question.
Did the police at a certain point in the investigation believe that Madeleine had accidentally died and K&G has hidden her body?
If you believe that then a book stating that is factual and not libellous.
When did democratic Portugal revert to being a fascist police state wherein a group of policeman assume the power to decide the type of crime ... the status of a victim whether dead or alive ... and who the perpetrators of the crime they have decided upon are.
All of that without an iota of evidence ... all of that without an iota of proof.
In effect that is exactly what Goncalo Amaral did and more when he penned his vindictive book to defend his honour at the expense of attempting to destroy a family already well on its way to being destroyed by the loss of their dearly loved little girl.
In my opinion some of the Portuguese judiciary have condoned that.
It will be of interest to see which side of the Portuguese fence the European Court of Human Rights comes down on, whether the police state or the democracy.
-
But of course that isn’t what the book did.
You have to ask yourself a question.
Did the police at a certain point in the investigation believe that Madeleine had accidentally died and K&G has hidden her body?
If you believe that then a book stating that is factual and not libellous.
The job of investigating police officers is to collect enough evidence with which to make a charge against a suspect stick, not to decide who dunnit and then publicise their thoughts on the matter in the media.
-
It’s not for the ECHR to determine that tho?
Isn’t it that the complaint is against the SC of Portugal for not understanding where they went wrong ?
looking at other cases the ECHR will look at the evidence on which the allegations are made....and whether its been presented in a balanced way...they will then decide on the balance of articles 10 and 8
-
But of course that isn’t what the book did.
You have to ask yourself a question.
Did the police at a certain point in the investigation believe that Madeleine had accidentally died and K&G has hidden her body?
If you believe that then a book stating that is factual and not libellous.
The court said amarals claims were mainly based on the police files...that means some were not. He presented the dogs as having solved 200 cases...absolute rubbish.....vastly over stating their reliability....many other things he said were not in the files. He claimed he could prove maddie died in the apartmenta nd her death was covered up..again he couldnt ...he made a case against the parents on evidence taht did not exist
-
The job of investigating police officers is to collect enough evidence with which to make a charge against a suspect stick, not to decide who dunnit and then publicise their thoughts on the matter in the media.
The job of serving officers, not retired ones.
-
They were being investigated! They were suspects. They invited the media. They were told not to contact the media or talk about the case.
They shot themselves in the foot, and now hobble along complaining someone gave them a loaded gun.
This is to do with SC ruling. You need to cite exactly the bits in that SC ruling which the ECHR will find in McCann favour.
No point in citing other cases, as they are not this case. Stick to this case and keep it simple.
its to do with the SC ruling on the balance of article 8 vs article 10....and almost certainly the presumption of innocence
-
looking at other cases the ECHR will look at the evidence on which the allegations are made....and whether its been presented in a balanced way...they will then decide on the balance of articles 10 and 8
So you keep on repeating but its only your opinion that's what they'll do . It might yet not get accepted . Have you found evidence of that yet ?
-
Porcine squadron- stand by for takeoff
An interesting word jassi which in the context of this case and Eddie conjures up all sorts of possibilities.
-
Didn't Amaral say that he would appeal to The ECHR if he lost against The McCanns? So we would be sitting here discussing this anyway, just from a different angle. And Sceptics would be saying the same things that Supporters are saying.
How does that grab anyone?
-
So you keep on repeating but its only your opinion that's what they'll do . It might yet not get accepted . Have you found evidence of that yet ?
Do you have a reason why it would not be accepted... From what I have seen if it had been rejected there would be a statement on the ECHR site
-
Do you have a reason why it would not be accepted... From what I have seen if it had been rejected there would be a statement on the ECHR site
Actually no. There will only be a rejection notice if it has been received and registered. Many Applications are never accepted in the first place if they fail to comply with the ECHR criteria, are incompetent or are not submitted correctly.
-
Actually no. There will only be a rejection notice if it has been received and registered. Many Applications are never accepted in the first place if they fail to comply with the ECHR criteria, are incompetent or are not submitted correctly.
What do you mean by ECHR criteria... What criteria
-
What do you mean by ECHR criteria... What criteria
Does the Court have jurisdiction to deal with your application?
To determine whether the Court is able (has jurisdiction) to deal with your application, please consult our online checklist questionnaire for guidance.
The purpose of this online checklist is to help you decide whether your case has any chance of being declared admissible.
As you answer the questionnaire, you will be given an indication of whether there may be an obstacle to admissibility. Please note that the form is for guidance only and not an official response from the Court.
Welcome to the European Court of Human Rights' applicant checklist. This checklist aims to give you guidance on your application to the Court. Before you answer the questionnaire, we would like to draw your attention to some facts and figures relating to admissibility.
Facts about admissibility
Did you know that 82% of all applications (a total of 38,505) decided by the Court in 2016 were declared inadmissible?
The principal reasons why applications were declared inadmissible in 2016 were as follows:
51% were rejected as manifestly ill-founded
19% of applications, the applicants did not exhaust domestic remedies
11% were lodged more than 6 months after the final decision taken by a domestic court
10% were rejected because the applicants wanted the Court to quash, rehear or revise decisions taken by domestic courts ("fourth instance")
9% of applications were found to be incompatible with the provisions of the Convention or its Protocols
The Court does not act as a court of appeal vis-à-vis domestic courts incompatible with the provisions of the Convention or its Protocols
http://app.echr.coe.int/CheckList/?cookieCheck=true
-
http://app.echr.coe.int/CheckList/?cookieCheck=true
That's.. Admissibility... And if it's not admissible... From what I've seen a rejection statement is issued
-
That's.. Admissibility... And if it's not admissible... From what I've seen a rejection statement is issued
I believe only two cases were recorded as being rejected recently despite the Court receiving hundreds of Applications.
If its not admissible it doesn't get registered.
-
Graphic
-
I believe only two cases were recorded as being rejected recently despite the Court receiving hundreds of Applications.
If its not admissible it doesn't get registered.
There are lots of records online that have registration numbers but have been declared inadmissible ..
The European Court of Human Rights has today rejected an application from the family of Alfie Evans
in the case of Evans v. the United Kingdom (application no. 18770/18).
The case concerned the family’s argument that the prevention of Alfie’s transfer from Alder Hey
Hospital constituted deprivation of liberty and a violation of Article 5 (right to liberty and security) of
the European Convention on Human Rights.
In its decision the Court found that the application was inadmissible
-
I believe only two cases were recorded as being rejected recently despite the Court receiving hundreds of Applications.
If its not admissible it doesn't get registered.
If a notification of rejection was published for every application, the the ECHR website would reflect that and a search function would be provided.
-
There are lots of records online that have registration numbers but have been declared inadmissible ..
The European Court of Human Rights has today rejected an application from the family of Alfie Evans
in the case of Evans v. the United Kingdom (application no. 18770/18).
The case concerned the family’s argument that the prevention of Alfie’s transfer from Alder Hey
Hospital constituted deprivation of liberty and a violation of Article 5 (right to liberty and security) of
the European Convention on Human Rights.
In its decision the Court found that the application was inadmissible
The clerks reject many applications before they even reach registration. An Application has to be competent and be submitted in the correct format otherwise it is sent back.
-
If a notification of rejection was published for every application, the the ECHR website would reflect that and a search function would be provided.
you can serach by name...just a google search
-
The clerks reject many applications before they're even reach registration.
do you have a cite for that ...it doessnt sound correct at all....every application would need to be registered so that a record could be kept..
If your application is clearly inadmissible because it does not meet
all the required admissibility criteria, it will be dealt with by a
single judge. The inadmissibility decision given by that judge is
final and it will be communicated to you. It is not possible to
challenge the inadmissibility decision or request any further
information about it. The Court will close the case and the file
will be destroyed at a later date.
-
Do you have a reason why it would not be accepted...
From what I have seen if it had been rejected there would be a statement on the ECHR site
Do they publish a list of rejected applications ? How much time elapses between the two ?
Reasons it might be rejected.
How about,
•51% were rejected as manifestly ill-founded
•10% were rejected because the applicants wanted the Court to quash, rehear or revise decisions taken by domestic courts ("fourth instance")
-
There is a fault with the Likes system at the moment which necessitated the removal of the function temporarily. Hopefully we can get it back soon.
-
It is possible that rejections are published on line, but cannot be viewed unless you know the case number.
-
do you have a cite for that ...it doessnt sound correct at all....every application would need to be registered so that a record could be kept..
If your application is clearly inadmissible because it does not meet
all the required admissibility criteria, it will be dealt with by a
single judge. The inadmissibility decision given by that judge is
final and it will be communicated to you. It is not possible to
challenge the inadmissibility decision or request any further
information about it. The Court will close the case and the file
will be destroyed at a later date.
Sorry davel but that is not the case, I have been through the process so I know first hand what happens. If an Application is incompetent for any reason it is sent back to the applicant by the court clerks. A judge will only see competent Applications once they are checked, processed and registered.
-
Do they publish a list of rejected applications ? How much time elapses between the two ?
Reasons it might be rejected.
How about,
•51% were rejected as manifestly ill-founded
•10% were rejected because the applicants wanted the Court to quash, rehear or revise decisions taken by domestic courts ("fourth instance")
in what way could it be manifestly ill founded........the mccanns are applying for a ruling on the violation of their human rights...they are not asking for a judgeemnt to be quashed...human right violations are exactly what the court deal with...
have you looked at any examples of manifestly ill founded....I doubt it
-
Sorry davel but that is not the case, I have been through the process so I know first hand what happens. If an Application is incompetent for any reason it is sent back to the applicant by the court clerks. A judge will only see competent Applications once they are checked, processed and registered.
bib. How long would pass between receiving an application and sending it back d'you think ?
-
Sorry davel but that is not the case, I have been through the process so I know first hand what happens. If an Application is incompetent for any reason it is sent back to the applicant by the court clerks. A judge will only see competent Applications once they are checked, processed and registered.
then you are not talking about admissibility and the criteria you have mentioned.....an application would only not be registerd if the form was not fully completed .....i wouldnt expect the mccans lawyers not to fill in the forms. As the case has not been declared inadmissable by a judge....i would assume a revised application could be made in those cases
-
bib. How long would pass between receiving an application and sending it back d'you think ?
Just days. I found the process relatively quick in the initial stages. Thereafter things can take months to move from a single judge who decides whether the Application has any merit to a panel who look at it in more detail.
-
Just days
so the form can then be corrected and re sent.....
-
If an application is successfully lodged, the country involve must be notified of this. Do they publish lists of outstanding cases ?
-
so the form can then be corrected and re sent.....
Certainly.
-
If an application is successfully lodged, the country involve must be notified of this. Do they publish lists of outstanding cases ?
The State against which the case is taken is notified but I don't think they publish it.
-
Davel. Your post regarding the SC ruling.
its legally binding up to the moment it was made but can be corrected by the ECHR....I believe two SC decisions have been corrected in the last few months
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=9775.405
No I haven't been looking all afternoon.
-
Davel. Your post regarding the SC ruling.
its legally binding up to the moment it was made but can be corrected by the ECHR....I believe two SC decisions have been corrected in the last few months
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=9775.405
No I haven't been looking all afternoon.
so where does it say the decisions have been over ruled...the decisions have been corrected...but not changed..
the correction does not affect the original decision...but would affect any future decisions
-
It’s not for the ECHR to determine that tho?
Isn’t it that the complaint is against the SC of Portugal for not understanding where they went wrong ?
We would assume they don’t think the SC got the balance right. Though most cases are about not considering rights.
-
so where does it say the decisions have been over ruled...the decisions have been corrected...but not changed..
the correction does not affect the original decision...but would affect any future decisions
Do you not imply that these decisions are no long legally binding following the ECHR making a "correction" to them.
-
you can serach by name...just a google search
Only for completed cases.
-
Do you not imply that these decisions are no long legally binding following the ECHR making a "correction" to them.
so now you have changed from me stating something...to me implying something.....my post is clear.....the ECHR cannot overr rule any domestic court decision....and I have never said or implied it can...it can rule that the decision was incorrect and not in line with ECHR law...that could then affect any future rulings
-
Only for completed cases.
if its declared inadmissable its complete
-
But of course that isn’t what the book did.
You have to ask yourself a question.
Did the police at a certain point in the investigation believe that Madeleine had accidentally died and K&G has hidden her body?
If you believe that then a book stating that is factual and not libellous.
The book and video combined did though. The total package was the problem.
-
The book and video combined did though. The total package was the problem.
The problem difficulty as I see it is that the evidence pointed to it.
-
The problem difficulty as I see it is that the evidence pointed to it.
but it didnt
-
so now you have changed from me stating something...to me implying something.....my post is clear.....the ECHR cannot overr rule any domestic court decision....and I have never said or implied it can...it can rule that the decision was incorrect and not in line with ECHR law...that could then affect any future rulings
Can you show me where your above claim that the ECHR cannot overrule any domestic decision is written below as I can't find this. You however have mentioned that the country's courts judgement was legally binding up to the moment it was made. That doesn't make much sense unless you are claiming that "it" is the ECHR decision, making the SC decisions invalid. No mention of future rulings only an end point to the existing SC decisions IMO
its legally binding up to the moment it was made but can be corrected by the ECHR....I believe two SC decisions have been corrected in the last few months
-
so now you have changed from me stating something...to me implying something.....my post is clear.....the ECHR cannot overr rule any domestic court decision....and I have never said or implied it can...it can rule that the decision was incorrect and not in line with ECHR law...that could then affect any future rulings
Only if the state in question changes its laws.
-
The problem difficulty as I see it is that the evidence pointed to it.
Not the evidence as I see it.
-
Can you show me where your above claim that the ECHR cannot overrule any domestic decision is written below as I can't find this. You however have mentioned that the country's courts judgement was legally binding up to the moment it was made. That doesn't make much sense unless you are claiming that "it" is the ECHR decision, making the SC decisions invalid. No mention of future rulings only an end point to the existing SC decisions IMO
its legally binding up to the moment it was made but can be corrected by the ECHR....I believe two SC decisions have been corrected in the last few months
i havent used the words overruled or invalid......but they can correct it.....
-
i havent used the words overruled or invalid......but they can correct it.....
You have said that following an ECHR "correction" the SC ruling will not be legally binding any more. That is wrong IMO
-
Only if the state in question changes its laws.
not at all....if the ECHR rule that amarals comments are a violation of article 8...and he repeats them.... then the mccanns ould take out a new case armed with an ECHR ruling
-
i havent used the words overruled or invalid......but they can correct it.....
If it was "corrected" could Amaral still sue the the McCanns on the basis of the old ruling?
-
You have said that following an ECHR "correction" the SC ruling will not be legally binding any more. That is wrong IMO
I never said that either ....cite.......the SC ruling cannot be changed is what I said
-
If it was "corrected" could Amaral still sue the the McCanns on the basis of the old ruling?
as that would then be a new case governed by the new ruling...i would think no....so amral should sue before any ECHR case.....if he has any grounds
-
I never said that either ....cite.......the SC ruling cannot be changed is what I said
"Legally binding up to the moment...." - NO it would still be legally binding Davel
its legally binding up to the moment it was made but can be corrected by the ECHR....I believe two SC decisions have been corrected in the last few months
-
if its declared inadmissable its complete
They don’t appear in the searchable database.
-
They don’t appear in the searchable database.
They may well be if you could search it
-
"Legally binding up to the moment...." - NO it would still be legally binding Davel
its legally binding up to the moment it was made but can be corrected by the ECHR....I believe two SC decisions have been corrected in the last few months
It would be legally binding and could not be changed.... Is what I have said all along....
-
It would be legally binding and could not be changed.... Is what I have said all along....
So what was the "up to the moment" bit about then Davel?
-
So what was the "up to the moment" bit about then Davel?
Ive expalined several times........if the mccanns receive a favourable judgeemnt at the ECHR.....and amaral repeats his claims....then a new trial could be held and the court would need to enforce current ECHr law and find in favour of the McCanns....If the mccanns had not gone to the ECHR....amaral could continualy repeat his claims with impunity...in reality hes gone rather quiet
-
Ive expalined several times........if the mccanns receive a favourable judgeemnt at the ECHR.....and amaral repeats his claims....then a new trial could be held and the court would need to enforce current ECHr law and find in favour of the McCanns....If the mccanns had not gone to the ECHR....amaral could continualy repeat his claims with impunity...in reality hes gone rather quiet
So it would be still legally binding and your "up to the moment" was wrong then Davel.
-
So it would be still legally binding and your "up to the moment" was wrong then Davel.
nope...and I think its about time you stopped this pathetic persistent arguing
-
nope...and I think its about time you stopped this pathetic persistent arguing
How droll.
Pots, kettles, black.
Or is that post a note to yourself?
-
How droll.
Pots, kettles, black.
Or is that post a note to yourself?
Its been 12 hours now since sunnys first off topic ad hom post was directed at me...and still not stopped ...carry on the pointless posts...are the sceptics trying to set a record today
-
Okay. That's enough now. Or else.
-
Its been 12 hours now since sunnys first off topic ad hom post was directed at me...and still not stopped ...carry on the pointless posts...are the sceptics trying to set a record today
Who knows? I don't the sceptics are a cohesive force with a common goal or opinion.
It is rather puerile to think otherwise.
But your posts seem to be setting a record for lack of knowledge w.r.t law, the ECHR and the ECtHR.
But keep on, it's good entertainment value if nothing else.
-
Ooops crossed post sorry boss 8(0(*
-
Ooops crossed post sorry boss 8(0(*
Thank You.
-
Who knows? I don't the sceptics are a cohesive force with a common goal or opinion.
It is rather puerile to think otherwise.
But your posts seem to be setting a record for lack of knowledge w.r.t law, the ECHR and the ECtHR.
But keep on, it's good entertainment value if nothing else.
then point out where I am wrong...the....its good entertainment..... goad is more than a little tired and overused now
-
Ive expalined several times........if the mccanns receive a favourable judgeemnt at the ECHR.....and amaral repeats his claims....then a new trial could be held and the court would need to enforce current ECHr law and find in favour of the McCanns....If the mccanns had not gone to the ECHR....amaral could continualy repeat his claims with impunity...in reality hes gone rather quiet
Portuguese Law will not change as a result of a McCann case to the ECHR. So they couldn't go back to court with the same complaint.
-
Portuguese Law will not change as a result of a McCann case to the ECHR. So they couldn't go back to court with the same complaint.
it wouldnt be the same complaint if you read my post....if amaral repeats his claim it would be a new complaint...and its not up to portuguese law...its ECHR law that counts in this case. the SC were at pains to show it complied with ECHR law....are you suggesting in future it would just ignore it
-
Portuguese Law will not change as a result of a McCann case to the ECHR. So they couldn't go back to court with the same complaint.
They could, if The ECHR rules in favour of The McCanns and Amaral mouths off again.
-
They could, if The ECHR rules in favour of The McCanns and Amaral mouths off again.
precisely
-
They could, if The ECHR rules in favour of The McCanns and Amaral mouths off again.
But that won't undo the SC ruling Eleanor and I would imagine it would depend up on what Goncalo Amaral actually said following a positive McCann ECHR ruling.
There have been defamation cases in Portugal before the McCanns you know. Some have had their appeals at the SC upheld and some have not. The law in Portugal stayed the same from what I have seen.
All IMO
-
But that won't undo the SC ruling Eleanor and I would imagine it would depend up on what Goncalo Amaral actually said following a positive McCann ECHR ruling.
There have been defamation cases in Portugal before the McCanns you know. Some have had their appeals at the SC upheld and some have not. The law in Portugal stayed the same from what I have seen.
All IMO
Portugal law has not stayed the same....its been influenced by the ECHR...i will add...imo...so I do not have to supply a cite
-
But that won't undo the SC ruling Eleanor and I would imagine it would depend up on what Goncalo Amaral actually said following a positive McCann ECHR ruling.
There have been defamation cases in Portugal before the McCanns you know. Some have had their appeals at the SC upheld and some have not. The law in Portugal stayed the same from what I have seen.
All IMO
I very much doubt that you could prove your second sentence.
Your first sentence is just a repeat of the same old same old, of which I have had enough.
-
They could, if The ECHR rules in favour of The McCanns and Amaral mouths off again.
He probably doesn't need to. He has made his point, much to McCann fury and chagrin.
-
He probably doesn't need to. He has made his point, much to McCann fury and chagrin.
I would say anyone who believes in justice would be offended by what amaral has said and what he has been allowed to get away with..its an affront to justice imo...and will be corrected by the ECHR
-
I very much doubt that you could prove your second sentence.
Your first sentence is just a repeat of the same old same old, of which I have had enough.
My first sentence was factual and relevant to Davel's claim IMO.
My second sentence was this
There have been defamation cases in Portugal before the McCanns you know
Do you really need me to provide a cite for this?
-
Portugal law has not stayed the same....its been influenced by the ECHR...i will add...imo...so I do not have to supply a cite
Recent Legal Changes (on defamation laws in Portugal)
N/A
http://legaldb.freemedia.at/legal-database/portugal/
-
Recent Legal Changes (on defamation laws in Portugal)
N/A
http://legaldb.freemedia.at/legal-database/portugal/
The SC quoted ECHR law in this case proving they were influenced by it....why eslse would they quote it
-
The SC quoted ECHR law in this case proving they were influenced by it....why eslse would they quote it
The Law will not change.
-
The Law will not change.
the interpretation of the law is what is changing.....why else would the SC quote ECHR cases if they were not influenced by it
-
the interpretation of the law is what is changing.....why else would the SC quote ECHR cases if they were not influenced by it
Correct. It is the interpretation of the law that would change.
-
I would say anyone who believes in justice would be offended by what amaral has said and what he has been allowed to get away with..its an affront to justice imo...and will be corrected by the ECHR
is is what the investigation said on 10th September 2007. Does that offend you?
From everything that was exposed from the AUTOS, we conclude that:
A) The minor Madeleine McCann died in the apartment 5A of the Ocean Club resort, on the night of May 3rd of 2007;
B) It was performed a simulation of kidnapping;
C) In order to avoid the death [alarm] of the minor before 22H00, it was created a situation of the children's surveillance by the McCann while the children slept;
D) Kate McCann and Gerald McCann are involved in the occultation of the cadaver of their child Madeleine McCann;
E) At this moment, there seems that there aren't strong indicia that the death of the minor didn't happen due to a tragic accident;
F) From what was obtained until now, everything points out that the McCann, as self-defence, didn't want to deliver immediately and voluntarily the cadaver, existing a strong possibility that the same was transported from the initial place of deposition. This situation is susceptible to raise questions about the circumstances under which the death of the minor occurred.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/TAVARES_ALMEIDA.htm
-
I would say anyone who believes in justice would be offended by what amaral has said and what he has been allowed to get away with..its an affront to justice imo...and will be corrected by the ECHR
is is what the investigation said on 10th September 2007. Does that offend you?
From everything that was exposed from the AUTOS, we conclude that:
A) The minor Madeleine McCann died in the apartment 5A of the Ocean Club resort, on the night of May 3rd of 2007;
B) It was performed a simulation of kidnapping;
C) In order to avoid the death [alarm] of the minor before 22H00, it was created a situation of the children's surveillance by the McCann while the children slept;
D) Kate McCann and Gerald McCann are involved in the occultation of the cadaver of their child Madeleine McCann;
E) At this moment, there seems that there aren't strong indicia that the death of the minor didn't happen due to a tragic accident;
F) From what was obtained until now, everything points out that the McCann, as self-defence, didn't want to deliver immediately and voluntarily the cadaver, existing a strong possibility that the same was transported from the initial place of deposition. This situation is susceptible to raise questions about the circumstances under which the death of the minor occurred.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/TAVARES_ALMEIDA.htm
Yes it offends me that the police did not listen to what the eperts said Re the evidence and based on their own misunderstanding of the evidence took the investigation in completely the wring direction... Amaral said he could prove Maddie died in the apartment yet in reality there was no evidence to support it
-
Just to let everyone know that the Like function is now working again.
-
Just to let everyone know that the Like function is now working again.
Thank you John *&(+(+
-
then point out where I am wrong...the....its good entertainment..... goad is more than a little tired and overused now
There are several pages of it already.
-
There are several pages of it already.
So you can't point to a single incidence... You used to make some decent points... You've spent too long in bad company...
-
The SC quoted ECHR law in this case proving they were influenced by it....why eslse would they quote it
The decision of the SC dates from 2010 and although they quoted ECHR rulings to support their decision, the ECHR ruled in 2017 in favour of the journalist, citing the the right to freedom of expression and opinion.
-
The decision of the SC dates from 2010 and although they quoted ECHR rulings to support their decision, the ECHR ruled in 2017 in favour of the journalist, citing the the right to freedom of expression and opinion.
You would need to supply a link to the case to understand it's relevance... Depends what he was commenting on and the veracity of his statement
Freedom of expression is not a right to say anything about anyone
-
You would need to supply a link to the case to understand it's relevance... Depends what he was commenting on and the veracity of his statement
Freedom of expression is not a right to say anything about anyone
If it was this one then it was an opinion
https://algarvedailynews.com/news/10833-freedom-of-the-press-more-important-than-supreme-court-president-s-hurt-feelings
-
If it was this one then it was an opinion
https://algarvedailynews.com/news/10833-freedom-of-the-press-more-important-than-supreme-court-president-s-hurt-feelings
That's a link to s newspaper article... Not a link to the ECHR ruling
-
You would need to supply a link to the case to understand it's relevance... Depends what he was commenting on and the veracity of his statement
Freedom of expression is not a right to say anything about anyone
I read the interview and the journalist states that the defamation laws are good, the problem is that too many judges still rule in favour of preserving honour and reputation over freedom of expression and opinion. This is the reason why Portugal has lost cases in the ECHR. Also, it was pointed out that the compensation awarded was disproportionate, even more than what is awarded in murder cases. Imagine what the ECHR would have thought of awarding compensation for over 500.000€ in a civil case!
-
I read the interview and the journalist states that the defamation laws are good, the problem is that too many judges still rule in favour of preserving honour and reputation over freedom of expression and opinion. This is the reason why Portugal has lost cases in the ECHR. Also, it was pointed out that the compensation awarded was disproportionate, even more than what is awarded in murder cases. Imagine what the ECHR would have thought of awarding compensation for over 500.000€ in a civil case!
I've read the case as well... Some time ago... It relates to a journalist being critical of a judge and the court protecting the establishment... That's why it was corrected
-
That's a link to s newspaper article... Not a link to the ECHR ruling
Davel there is no link to the ECHR ruling. There is a page where you have to download it. Just search for José Manuel Fernandes echr ruling and it should be around the third link down. Download it and read it.
-
Davel there is no link to the ECHR ruling. There is a page where you have to download it. Just search for José Manuel Fernandes echr ruling and it should be around the third link down. Download it and read it.
I've read about the case before.... The journalist was simply critical of the judge... He wasn't accusing the judge of being a criminal and a liar
-
So you can't point to a single incidence... You used to make some decent points... You've spent too long in bad company...
Oh rather old stick
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ww5GXbk58R0
-
So you can't point to a single incidence... You used to make some decent points... You've spent too long in bad company...
That is an erroneous inference you have drawn.
You have repeatedly ignored the caveat the ECtHR stipulates when trying to use Article 8 to trump Article 10.
"The Court has held, moreover, that Article 8 cannot be relied on in order to complain of a loss of reputation which is the foreseeable consequence of one’s own actions"
The list would include but not be limited to:
Courting the media.
Briefing against the police.
Lack of cooperation with the police.
Leaving minors unattended thus contravening your own country's guidelines on child care.
-
An interesting article on Portugal's defamation laws:
https://ipi.media/ipi-report-highlights-need-for-defamation-reform-in-portugal/
-
An interesting article on Portugal's defamation laws:
https://ipi.media/ipi-report-highlights-need-for-defamation-reform-in-portugal/
That was in Jun 9, 2015. I wonder if they have made improvements since then?
-
That is an erroneous inference you have drawn.
You have repeatedly ignored the caveat the ECtHR stipulates when trying to use Article 8 to trump Article 10.
"The Court has held, moreover, that Article 8 cannot be relied on in order to complain of a loss of reputation which is the foreseeable consequence of one’s own actions"
The list would include but not be limited to:
Courting the media.
Briefing against the police.
Lack of cooperation with the police.
Leaving minors unattended thus contravening your own country's guidelines on child care.
But that is not limited ti what amaral has accused them of.... Hiding their daughters body... Lying on a, grand scale... Fraud in a grand scale... So to me that argument does not hold water
-
An interesting article on Portugal's defamation laws:
https://ipi.media/ipi-report-highlights-need-for-defamation-reform-in-portugal/
I've seen this before... It appears ti me that Portugal was not allowing legitimate criticism of it's establishment by journalist... As, in the Fernandez case... It seems to me the SC looked at this and went too far in the opposite direction in the McCann case...ie... They still have not managed ti get the balance, right
-
But that is not limited ti what amaral has accused them of.... Hiding their daughters body... Lying on a, grand scale... Fraud in a grand scale... So to me that argument does not hold water
Gonçalo Amaral never accused them of hiding their daughter's body or lying, etc. He only repeated what the conclusions of the investigation were in September 2007. Neither did he say that they committed fraud, he only brought up the possibility to the UK police if it had been found out that the parents knew what happened to their daughter.
-
Gonçalo Amaral never accused them of hiding their daughter's body or lying, etc. He only repeated what the conclusions of the investigation were in September 2007. Neither did he say that they committed fraud, he only brought up the possibility to the UK police if it had been found out that the parents knew what happened to their daughter.
Have you watched the documentary... He claimed as fact Maddie died in the apartment.... He claimed as fact the death was covered up
-
Have you watched the documentary... He claimed as fact Maddie died in the apartment.... He claimed as fact the death was covered up
The second necessarily follows from the first.
-
00.48 - During the following 50 minutes, I will prove that the child was not abducted, and that she died in the holiday apartment in Praia da Luz.
The investigation never said it could prove Maddie died in the apartment and was not abducted
-
00.48 - During the following 50 minutes, I will prove that the child was not abducted, and that she died in the holiday apartment in Praia da Luz.
The investigation never said it could prove Maddie died in the apartment and was not abducted
How do you know?
-
How do you know?
Know what
-
Know what
Oddly enough, it was the statement you made in the post I replied to.
-
Oddly enough, it was the statement you made in the post I replied to.
So what were you referring to... He said he would prove.... The evidence he presented proved nothing... If it did the McCann's would be arrested....
-
So what were you referring to... He said he would prove.... The evidence he presented proved nothing... If it did the McCann's would be arrested....
Judge Maria Emilia Melo e Castro
Final Determination concerning Facts 21/01/2015
"It is important to keep in mind that it is NOT illegal to sustain the thesis according to which Madeleine McCann died in the apartment of Praia da Luz and that her body was concealed by her parents".
-
Judge Maria Emilia Melo e Castro
Final Determination concerning Facts 21/01/2015
"It is important to keep in mind that it is NOT illegal to sustain the thesis according to which Madeleine McCann died in the apartment of Praia da Luz and that her body was concealed by her parents".
Amaral said he could prove it.... Also in another case from the ECHR the court criticised an opinion that was not balanced.... Amaral has not reported a balanced view if the case... He has claimed evidence which does not exist.... There is no evidence that Maddie died in the apartment yet amaral claims, there is proof
-
Amaral said he could prove it.... Also in another case from the ECHR the court criticised an opinion that was not balanced.... Amaral has not reported a balanced view if the case... He has claimed evidence which does not exist.... There is no evidence that Maddie died in the apartment yet amaral claims, there is proof
So is this the reason you suppose that the McCanns are going to the ECHR because Amaral said this and that,strong case you say, hmmm.Still the thread has legs over 12 months since the opening post,152 pages and its not even known if its been accepted, thrown out with the bath water or what?
-
How do you know?
Cite for that. If you please.
-
So is this the reason you suppose that the McCanns are going to the ECHR because Amaral said this and that,strong case you say, hmmm.Still the thread has legs over 12 months since the opening post,152 pages and its not even known if its been accepted, thrown out with the bath water or what?
It's not known what happened to Maddie yet forums have been going for 11 years
-
The case was never about the veracity of the book or the investigation.
-
The case was never about the veracity of the book or the investigation.
From looking at other cases on the ECHR website.... The court will look at the veracity of the accusations
-
All posters are asked to please refrain from making disparaging remarks towards our moderators. It is both uncalled for and unnecessary. TY
-
But that is not limited ti what amaral has accused them of.... Hiding their daughters body... Lying on a, grand scale... Fraud in a grand scale... So to me that argument does not hold water
I did not expect for one second that it would.
Your view on whether the ECtHR caveat stands up is irrelevant; it is what the judges at the ECtHR decide that will count. Sr Amaral has naff all to do with it much as you might wish differently.
The clue is in why judge in the court of first instance made the decision she did. She went to great lengths to explain her reasoning which suppporters appear signally to have failed to understand.The Court of Appeal ruled she erred on a point of law. The Supreme Court upheld the decision of the The Court of Appeal. End of the line.
-
I did not expect for one second that it would.
Your view on whether the ECtHR caveat stands up is irrelevant; it is what the judges at the ECtHR decide that will count. Sr Amaral has naff all to do with it much as you might wish differently.
The clue is in why judge in the court of first instance made the decision she did. She went to great lengths to explain her reasoning which suppporters appear signally to have failed to understand.The Court of Appeal ruled she erred on a point of law. The Supreme Court upheld the decision of the The Court of Appeal. End of the line.
And I did not expect you to agre with me. As Montclair pointed out the domestic courts, were not concerned with the veracity of the statements... From what I have seen the, ECHR will be... and that makes some, sense. It's no good saying the domestic court got it right.... That's why they've gone to the ECHR... the complaint to the ECHR isn't the, same as, was made at the first instance... It can't be..
It's what was ruled by the SC on presumption of innocence and right to reputation ..
Amaral has nothing to do with the action but what he, has, said has a, lot to do with the action
-
I did not expect for one second that it would.
Your view on whether the ECtHR caveat stands up is irrelevant; it is what the judges at the ECtHR decide that will count. Sr Amaral has naff all to do with it much as you might wish differently.
The clue is in why judge in the court of first instance made the decision she did. She went to great lengths to explain her reasoning which suppporters appear signally to have failed to understand.The Court of Appeal ruled she erred on a point of law. The Supreme Court upheld the decision of the The Court of Appeal. End of the line.
The point if law is... Duty of reserve I assume...
The SC ruled on a lot more than that one point if you read the judgement... A lot more. Then the final appeal to nulify the SC judgement... Was regarding presumption if innocence and right to reputation. Do you, really believe it, was, a coincidence that those, are two points that can give grounds for an action at the ECHR.... They had already decided at that point imo
-
So what were you referring to... He said he would prove.... The evidence he presented proved nothing... If it did the McCann's would be arrested....
“The investigation never said it could prove Maddie died in the apartment and was not abducted”
-
One might almost think you were being deliberately obtuse.
“The investigation never said it could prove Maddie died in the apartment and was not abducted”
You think a lot that is incorrect... Imo
-
From looking at other cases on the ECHR website.... The court will look at the veracity of the accusations
The applicants can only present arguments that had already been presented in court in Portugal. They can't use new elements that were not part of their case in the beginning and the question of the veracity of the book was never part of the case, as confirmed by the judge.
-
The applicants can only present arguments that had already been presented in court in Portugal. They can't use new elements that were not part of their case in the beginning and the question of the veracity of the book was never part of the case, as confirmed by the judge.
Im going for 'they will try' as they did at the second diet. Gerry tried to control the agenda and the Jodge was having none of it, telling him to sit down! oh how I laughed.
-
The applicants can only present arguments that had already been presented in court in Portugal. They can't use new elements that were not part of their case in the beginning and the question of the veracity of the book was never part of the case, as confirmed by the judge.
Absolute rubbish..... Gerry wanted to question the alerts, and was not allowed....
-
Absolute rubbish..... Gerry wanted to question the alerts, and was not allowed....
Hahahaha he wanted to 'ask the dawgs' Sandra? He alreay rubbished the dogs .
-
And I did not expect you to agre with me. As Montclair pointed out the domestic courts, were not concerned with the veracity of the statements... From what I have seen the, ECHR will be... and that makes some, sense. It's no good saying the domestic court got it right.... That's why they've gone to the ECHR... the complaint to the ECHR isn't the, same as, was made at the first instance... It can't be..
It's what was ruled by the SC on presumption of innocence and right to reputation ..
Amaral has nothing to do with the action but what he, has, said has a, lot to do with the action
What is it you have seen?
The argument can only be does Article 8 trump Article 10 or vice versa. Did the Supreme Court say the McCanns were guilty of anything?
There have a large number of cases where the ECtHR believed Article 10 was supreme.
It's anyone's guess how it will be judged but what it will not do is cause a seismic shift of anything.
-
What is it you have seen?
The argument can only be does Article 8 trump Article 10 or vice versa. Did the Supreme Court say the McCanns were guilty of anything?
There have a large number of cases where the ECtHR believed Article 10 was supreme.
It's anyone's guess how it will be judged but what it will not do is cause a seismic shift of anything.
But what we could do is imagine that the ECHR will find the MCanns innocent of everything and find Amaral guilty and have him shot at dawn-not to mention bankrupting the whole portugal nation for having the bloody audacity to suspect perfect parents of any crime.
-
But what we could do is imagine that the ECHR will find the MCanns innocent of everything and find Amaral guilty and have him shot at dawn-not to mention bankrupting the whole portugal nation for having the bloody audacity to suspect perfect parents of any crime.
If only!
-
If only the parents loved their childern enough to take them out to dinner with them...to spend quality time with them...
If only....
-
What is it you have seen?
The argument can only be does Article 8 trump Article 10 or vice versa. Did the Supreme Court say the McCanns were guilty of anything?
There have a large number of cases where the ECtHR believed Article 10 was supreme.
It's anyone's guess how it will be judged but what it will not do is cause a seismic shift of anything.
Ive been saying its 8 vs 10 for some time........if we look at previous cases we can get some idea of how the court judge these casess ....Ive shown some here. From what I have seen the mccanns have a strong case
-
Ive been saying its 8 vs 10 for some time........if we look at previous cases we can get some idea of how the court judge these casess ....Ive shown some here. From what I have seen the mccanns have a strong case
The cases you quote are usually about third parties (newspapers) with no connection to the cases making statements with lack of knowledge or backing against private individuals. That is not the case in the McCann case.
-
The cases you quote are usually about third parties (newspapers) with no connection to the cases making statements with lack of knowledge or backing against private individuals. That is not the case in the McCann case.
The fact amaral had a connection ti the case makes no difference IMO... That will be up to the court....I don't expect sceptics to agree with me but to suggest the McCanns have no case is ridiculous. The cases I have shown indicate that there should be evidence to support the claim and the view expressed should be balanced. There is no evidence Maddie died in the apartment... The Portuguese court totally ignored the lack of evidence. The book and the SC judgement have labelled the McCanns criminals... I feel they have a very strong case.... I don't expect sceptics to accept that
-
The fact amaral had a connection ti the case makes no difference IMO... That will be up to the court....I don't expect sceptics to agree with me but to suggest the McCanns have no case is ridiculous. The cases I have shown indicate that there should be evidence to support the claim and the view expressed should be balanced. There is no evidence Maddie died in the apartment... The Portuguese court totally ignored the lack of evidence. The book and the SC judgement have labelled the McCanns criminals... I feel they have a very strong case.... I don't expect sceptics to accept that
That's all right then Davel. You say this time and time again but it is still only your opinion after all.
-
That's all right then Davel. You say this time and time again but it is still only your opinion after all.
And posters have continually posted... They won't apply... They have no case... It won't be accepted... I'm simply giving the other side.... And at least my opinion is based on cases I have cited....
-
Absolute rubbish..... Gerry wanted to question the alerts, and was not allowed....
The reason Gerry was not allowed to rubbish the dogs in court was because it was not part of the case. The judge said that they were not there to judge the veracity of the book or the investigation. The case was how the book, video, etc. damaged the search and their livres. The ECHR is not a criminal court and will certainly not be studying the fine points of the police investigation.
-
And posters have continually posted... They won't apply... They have no case... It won't be accepted... I'm simply giving the other side.... And at least my opinion is based on cases I have cited....
Isn’t each case different? How many of the cases you have looked at have been comparable to the McCanns ?
-
The reason Gerry was not allowed to rubbish the dogs was because it was not part of the case.
It was in the book and the documentary... With false claims made Re their reliability.. It will be interesting to see what the ECHR make of it
-
Isn’t each case different? How many of the cases you have looked at have been comparable to the McCanns ?
How many cases have you looked at.... I've posted a li k to a list of them and they make very interesting reading.
They show that the ECHRwill look at the evidence that supports amarals claims and whether he had presented a balanced view
-
It was in the book and the documentary... With false claims made Re their reliability.. It will be interesting to see what the ECHR make of it
The crux of any case will be, did the PT SC fail to consider any of the rights in play.
-
The crux of any case will be, did the PT SC fail to consider any of the rights in play.
No... They did consider them... It's whether they got the balance right
-
How many cases have you looked at.... I've posted a li k to a list of them and they make very interesting reading.
They show that the ECHRwill look at the evidence that supports amarals claims and whether he had presented a balanced view
I completely disagree with what you’re claiming the ECHR will do but I’m not going to bang on about it any further for the sake of my sanity .
-
No... They did consider them... It's whether they got the balance right
For which they need to take account of the source of the information complained about.
-
For which they need to take account of the source of the information complained about.
Where's, the source for the dogs solving 200 cases... Remember the files said the alerts had no evidential value.... Amaral ignored the parts of the official files that didn't support his view and therefore did not present a balanced view
-
It was in the book and the documentary... With false claims made Re their reliability.. It will be interesting to see what the ECHR make of it
I give up, you refuse to understand. The ECHR will be concerned with human rights not with the investigation or the dogs!
-
I give up, you refuse to understand. The ECHR will be concerned with human rights not with the investigation or the dogs!
The only way they can assess a breach of human rights us to decide if amarals wiews, were supported by evidence and balance.... You are the one who refuses to accept reality... Imo
-
The only way they can assess a breach of human rights us to decide if amarals wiews, were supported by evidence and balance.... You are the one who refuses to accept reality... Imo
Wrong, you want them to act as a Court of fourth instance which leads to inadmissibility.
-
Wrong, you want them to act as a Court of fourth instance which leads to inadmissibility.
I'm not wrong at all... Explain why you THINK... I'm wrong..
It's a basic 8 vs 10....nothing to do with 4th instance.... Plus perhaps the presumption of innocence
-
I'm not wrong at all... Explain why you THINK... I'm wrong..
It's a basic 8 vs 10....nothing to do with 4th instance.... Plus perhaps the presumption of innocence
You want them to review the evidence which is fourth instance.
-
It's certainly going to be fun on here when this application gets rejected.
-
That's all right then Davel. You say this time and time again but it is still only your opinion after all.
Which changes with the wind.
It's moved along way over 152 pages.
-
The fact amaral had a connection ti the case makes no difference IMO... That will be up to the court....I don't expect sceptics to agree with me but to suggest the McCanns have no case is ridiculous. The cases I have shown indicate that there should be evidence to support the claim and the view expressed should be balanced. There is no evidence Maddie died in the apartment... The Portuguese court totally ignored the lack of evidence. The book and the SC judgement have labelled the McCanns criminals... I feel they have a very strong case.... I don't expect sceptics to accept that
Oh what?
@)(++(*
-
You want them to review the evidence which is fourth instance
No I don't want them to review anything... They will want to know if amarals claims have any veracity... To understand that they will need to look at the evidence that supports them
-
I'm not wrong at all... Explain why you THINK... I'm wrong..
It's a basic 8 vs 10....nothing to do with 4th instance.... Plus perhaps the presumption of innocence
Which is protected in Portuguese law by arguido status.
-
Which changes with the wind.
It's moved along way over 152 pages.
Cite from where my opinion has, changed... At least I'm offering an opinion unlike you who has been reduced to sniping little, remarks... You seem to have nothing if value to say on the subject
-
Which is protected in Portuguese law by arguido status.
But not afforded to the McCanns.. Have you read the application to annul the SC judgement
-
There was, a good point made yesterday by Slarti... I believe
That the interim report considered the McCanns guilty of hiding a, cadaver.... Since when have the police had the power to decide innocence or guilt
-
There was, a good point made yesterday by Slarti... I believe
That the interim report considered the McCanns guilty of hiding a, cadaver.... Since when have the police had the power to decide innocence or guilt
LOL! How do you expect the police to investigate a crime if they can't come to the conclusion that the suspect committed it? Their report is then handed over to the prosecutors who then decide whether to take it to trial!
-
There was, a good point made yesterday by Slarti... I believe
That the interim report considered the McCanns guilty of hiding a, cadaver.... Since when have the police had the power to decide innocence or guilt
The police come to conclusions only l Concealment of a cadaver is a conclusion reached but if eventually proven would be a crime.
-
There was, a good point made yesterday by Slarti... I believe
That the interim report considered the McCanns guilty of hiding a, cadaver.... Since when have the police had the power to decide innocence or guilt
According to the McCann's lawyers an archiving under 277/1 equals a legally binding declaration of innocence. Not only that, it's res judicata (a case in which there has been a final judgment and is no longer subject to appeal). So the police and the prosecutors declared them innocent according to their lawyers.
Article 277 - Archiving of the investigation
1 - The Public Ministry shall, by dispatch, close the investigation, as soon as it has gathered sufficient evidence that the crime was not confirmed, that the arguido did not practice it in any way or that the procedure is legally inadmissible.....
As far as the appellants are aware of, the archiving at stake was carried out, in the course of the investigation, because sufficient proof had been gathered that the then arguidos did not commit any facts of a criminal relevance...
That is to say, therefore, that the filing order uttered according to article 277-1 of the CPP, after the deadline of article 278 (10) of the same legal compendium, is res judicata and is only subject to review according to the terms of articles 279 and 449-2 of the CPP.
http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/Annulment_request.htm
-
.
The police come to conclusions only l Concealment of a cadaver is a conclusion reached but if eventually proven would be a crime.
Amaral said he could prove Maddie, died in the apartment..
-
According to the McCann's lawyers an archiving under 277/1 equals a legally binding declaration of innocence. Not only that, it's res judicata (a case in which there has been a final judgment and is no longer subject to appeal). So the police and the prosecutors declared them innocent according to their lawyers.
Article 277 - Archiving of the investigation
1 - The Public Ministry shall, by dispatch, close the investigation, as soon as it has gathered sufficient evidence that the crime was not confirmed, that the arguido did not practice it in any way or that the procedure is legally inadmissible.....
As far as the appellants are aware of, the archiving at stake was carried out, in the course of the investigation, because sufficient proof had been gathered that the then arguidos did not commit any facts of a criminal relevance...
That is to say, therefore, that the filing order uttered according to article 277-1 of the CPP, after the deadline of article 278 (10) of the same legal compendium, is res judicata and is only subject to review according to the terms of articles 279 and 449-2 of the CPP.
http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/Annulment_request.htm
Quote for... Legally binding declaration of innocence...
Your posts, seem to get more absurd by the day
-
Quote for... Legally binding declaration of innocence...
Your posts, seem to get more absurd by the day
They have claimed that the McCanns were cleared by the archiving dispatch.
They have claimed that the archiving dispatch is res judicata.
Add them together and you get something equivalent to an acquittal. The absurdity isn't mine, it lies in the desperate arguments made by these lawyers.
-
Amaral said he could prove Maddie, died in the apartment..
Amaral et al might well have proved it ...eventually .....but he didn’t say the McCanns had killed Madeleine ?
-
They have claimed that the McCanns were cleared by the archiving dispatch.
They have claimed that the archiving dispatch is res judicata.
Add them together and you get something equivalent to an acquittal. The absurdity isn't mine, it lies in the desperate arguments made by these lawyers.
So it's a phrase, you have made up... Afaiac they see the, archiving despatch as, evidence of innocence... Which it is. .imo
-
Amaral et al might well have proved it ...eventually .....but he didn’t say the McCanns had killed Madeleine ?
But he claimed he could prove it... Which he couldnt
-
But he claimed he could prove it... Which he couldnt
Did he set a period of time in which he could?
-
Did he set a period of time in which he could?
Yes he did... Have you not watched the documentary... He said he would prove it in the documentary... He didnt
00.48 - During the following 50 minutes, I will prove that the child was not abducted, and that she died in the holiday apartment in Praia da Luz.
-
Yes he did... Have you not watched the documentary... He said he would prove it in the documentary... He didnt
00.48 - During the following 50 minutes, I will prove that the child was not abducted, and that she died in the holiday apartment in Praia da Luz.
The proof he was speaking about imo was showing us that cadaverine was found in those places we know about.
.
-
The proof he was speaking about imo was showing us that cadaverine was found in those places we know about.
.
Cadaverine was not confirmed.. So his evidence sucks
-
Cadaverine was not confirmed.. So his evidence sucks
i wonder then why Redwood announced that Madeleine might not have been alive when she left the apartment ? You will explain that away by saying it was that pesky burglar cum paedophile that killed her and carried her off leaving no time for cadaverine to develop he was that clever , I suppose ?
-
i wonder then why Redwood announced that Madeleine might not have been alive when she left the apartment ? You will explain that away by saying it was that pesky burglar cum paedophile that killed her and carried her off leaving no time for cadaverine to develop he was that clever , I suppose ?
That's because he didn't have any hard evidence either way, or he would have been more definite
How many years into the investigation was that - 4, 5 ?. I forget.
-
That's because he didn't have any hard evidence either way, or he would have been more definite
How many years into the investigation was that - 4, 5 ?. I forget.
Jassi I'm more inclined to think it might have been because he wanted to publicise the e fits of the man the Smith family saw.
-
No I don't want them to review anything... They will want to know if amarals claims have any veracity... To understand that they will need to look at the evidence that supports them
So you don’t want to review anything except the evidence?
-
That's because he didn't have any hard evidence either way, or he would have been more definite
How many years into the investigation was that - 4, 5 ?. I forget.
It was March 2014
Detective Chief Inspector Andy Redwood, in charge of the hunt for Madeleine, accepted there were differences between these cases and that of Madeleine's disappearance but added that there was a possibility that she had not left her family's holiday apartment alive when she disappeared in May 2007.
-
So you don’t want to review anything except the evidence?
They will need to review whose rights take precedence...
How else can they decide...
-
i wonder then why Redwood announced that Madeleine might not have been alive when she left the apartment ? You will explain that away by saying it was that pesky burglar cum paedophile that killed her and carried her off leaving no time for cadaverine to develop he was that clever , I suppose ?
Why were the dogs brought in.... Death in the, apartment was suspected before the alerts... The, alerts have no reliability as evidence of death in the, apartment
-
Why were the digs brought in.... Death in the, apartment was suspected before the alerts... The, alerts have no reliability as evidence of death in the, apartment
Do you mean digs or dogs Davel.
-
Why were the dogs brought in.... Death in the, apartment was suspected before the alerts... The, alerts have no reliability as evidence of death in the, apartment
So those checks to see if anyone had died in that apartment before the McCanns occupuied it were a pointless exercise?
-
So those checks to see if anyone had died in that apartment before the McCanns occupuied it were a pointless exercise?
Yes... The dogs purpose is to find evidence.... That's, what Grime says he trains then for.. You seem to have made the same mistake ad amaral... Attaching too much importance to the alerts
-
It's certainly going to be fun on here when this application gets rejected.
Should you be so lucky.
-
Yes... The dogs purpose is to find evidence.... That's, what Grime says he trains then for.. You seem to have made the same mistake ad amaral... Attaching too much importance to the alerts
Odd don't you think that the dogs only showed an interest in 5a ,none of the other apartments?
-
Odd don't you think that the dogs only showed an interest in 5a ,none of the other apartments?
Chance might have been a fine thing.
-
Odd don't you think that the dogs only showed an interest in 5a ,none of the other apartments?
No... I've explained exactly why before
-
No... I've explained exactly why before
Perhaps before I became a member ?
-
Perhaps before I became a member ?
There is a search facility.
-
There is a search facility.
And what should Snowgirl search for?
-
And what should Snowgirl search for?
Snowgirl doesn't have to search... She can ask me... Haven't you ever seen the explanation... Supplied by the PJ
-
Snowgirl doesn't have to search... She can ask me... Haven't you ever seen the explanation... Supplied by the PJ
You chose not to explain it earlier.
-
You chose not to explain it earlier.
Cite... I didnt
-
But not afforded to the McCanns.. Have you read the application to annul the SC judgement
1) How do you figure that out?
2) Yes!. Well that which is bandied about on that tinternet.
-
1) How do you figure that out?
2) Yes!. Well that which is bandied about on that tinternet.
Have you read the answer to the appeal to annul the SC verdict... It's there... English translation with the original Portuguese
-
According to the McCann's lawyers an archiving under 277/1 equals a legally binding declaration of innocence. Not only that, it's res judicata (a case in which there has been a final judgment and is no longer subject to appeal). So the police and the prosecutors declared them innocent according to their lawyers.
Article 277 - Archiving of the investigation
1 - The Public Ministry shall, by dispatch, close the investigation, as soon as it has gathered sufficient evidence that the crime was not confirmed, that the arguido did not practice it in any way or that the procedure is legally inadmissible.....
As far as the appellants are aware of, the archiving at stake was carried out, in the course of the investigation, because sufficient proof had been gathered that the then arguidos did not commit any facts of a criminal relevance...
That is to say, therefore, that the filing order uttered according to article 277-1 of the CPP, after the deadline of article 278 (10) of the same legal compendium, is res judicata and is only subject to review according to the terms of articles 279 and 449-2 of the CPP.
http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/Annulment_request.htm
"Res judicata" it most certainly was not/ is not.
-
"Res judicata" it most certainly was not/ is not.
And the McCanns never claimed it was a legally binding declaration of innocens as gunit has claimed
-
According to the McCann's lawyers an archiving under 277/1 equals a legally binding declaration of innocence. Not only that, it's res judicata (a case in which there has been a final judgment and is no longer subject to appeal). So the police and the prosecutors declared them innocent according to their lawyers.
Article 277 - Archiving of the investigation
1 - The Public Ministry shall, by dispatch, close the investigation, as soon as it has gathered sufficient evidence that the crime was not confirmed, that the arguido did not practice it in any way or that the procedure is legally inadmissible.....
As far as the appellants are aware of, the archiving at stake was carried out, in the course of the investigation, because sufficient proof had been gathered that the then arguidos did not commit any facts of a criminal relevance...
That is to say, therefore, that the filing order uttered according to article 277-1 of the CPP, after the deadline of article 278 (10) of the same legal compendium, is res judicata and is only subject to review according to the terms of articles 279 and 449-2 of the CPP.
http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/Annulment_request.htm
Did the McCanns lawyers, actually use this term... Res judicata... Do you have a cite... Or was it another paraphrase by Anne
-
Did the McCanns lawyers, actually use this term... Res judicata... Do you have a cite... Or was it another paraphrase by Anne
I love the idea of "res judicata" being a paraphrase. [no suitable emoji is available]
-
I love the idea of "res judicata" being a paraphrase. [no suitable emoji is available]
The question is... Did the McCanns lawyers use it... Do you have a cite... Or do you have a hat you could eat
-
According to the McCann's lawyers an archiving under 277/1 equals a legally binding declaration of innocence. Not only that, it's res judicata (a case in which there has been a final judgment and is no longer subject to appeal). So the police and the prosecutors declared them innocent according to their lawyers.
Article 277 - Archiving of the investigation
1 - The Public Ministry shall, by dispatch, close the investigation, as soon as it has gathered sufficient evidence that the crime was not confirmed, that the arguido did not practice it in any way or that the procedure is legally inadmissible.....
As far as the appellants are aware of, the archiving at stake was carried out, in the course of the investigation, because sufficient proof had been gathered that the then arguidos did not commit any facts of a criminal relevance...
That is to say, therefore, that the filing order uttered according to article 277-1 of the CPP, after the deadline of article 278 (10) of the same legal compendium, is res judicata and is only subject to review according to the terms of articles 279 and 449-2 of the CPP.
http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/Annulment_request.htm
I'm fairly sure you are quoting Anne Gueddes res judicata... Those words do not seem to appear on page, 7 in the Portuguese
-
Did the McCanns lawyers, actually use this term... Res judicata... Do you have a cite... Or was it another paraphrase by Anne
Page 7
forca de caso julgado
-
Page 7
forca de caso julgado
So what is the translation of caso julgado... Are you sure your translation is accurate
-
Page 7
forca de caso julgado
You have repeatedly quoted Res judicata.... But the McCanns lawyers never used the phrase
-
I love the idea of "res judicata" being a paraphrase. [no suitable emoji is available]
Looks like you need to eat your hat
-
Looks like you need to eat your hat
Why?
res judicata is Latin with a specific meaning at law.
-
The question is... Did the McCanns lawyers use it... Do you have a cite... Or do you have a hat you could eat
Show me where I said they did.
-
Why?
res judicata is Latin with a specific meaning at law.
We know that..looks like McCanns lawyer never used the term and Anne gueddes used it as a paraphrase
-
Show me where I said they did.
Show me where I said you did
-
So what is the translation of caso julgado... Are you sure your translation is accurate
Plug it into Google translate and see what comes up.
"forca de caso julgado" = "res judicata"
Wait for it; wait for it.
-
The correct translation of res judicata is força de caso julgado which is the quality conferred to a judicial sentence against which there are no more appeals and cannot be changed and is indiscutable. This is the argument used by the McCanns that the archiving report had the "força de caso julgado" and which the Tribunal da Relação and the SC ruled against.
-
The correct translation of res judicata is força de caso julgado which is the quality conferred to a judicial sentence against which there are no more appeals and cannot be changed and is indiscutable. This is the argument used by the McCanns that the archiving report had the "força de caso julgado" and which the Tribunal da Relação and the SC ruled against.
They were quite clear in their rejection;
This is why it was judged in the ruling that it would not seem acceptable to consider that the order should be treated as a demonstration of acquittal.
http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/STJ_21_03_2017_Rejected.htm
-
They were quite clear in their rejection;
This is why it was judged in the ruling that it would not seem acceptable to consider that the order should be treated as a demonstration of acquittal.
http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/STJ_21_03_2017_Rejected.htm
"the appellants condemned at the expense of the incident which they gave rise to".
Interesting.
-
They were quite clear in their rejection;
This is why it was judged in the ruling that it would not seem acceptable to consider that the order should be treated as a demonstration of acquittal.
http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/STJ_21_03_2017_Rejected.htm
It's an incidentalissue as they are entitled to the presumption of innocence... I don't see anywhere they regards it as proof of innocence
-
It's an incidentalissue as they are entitled to the presumption of innocence... I don't see anywhere they regards it as proof of innocence
It's fundamental to their argument. The McCanns were always entitled to the presumption of innocence, but the lawyers are trying to demonstrate that the right was breached.
They managed to persuade the first judge that Amaral's freedom of expression was restricted by the rules governing his retirement from the PJ. The Appeal Court rejected that.
They then turned to the archiving dispatch and tried to argue that it was the same as an acquittal. The Supreme Court rejected that.
-
It's fundamental to their argument. The McCanns were always entitled to the presumption of innocence, but the lawyers are trying to demonstrate that the right was breached.
They managed to persuade the first judge that Amaral's freedom of expression was restricted by the rules governing his retirement from the PJ. The Appeal Court rejected that.
They then turned to the archiving dispatch and tried to argue that it was the same as an acquittal. The Supreme Court rejected that.
They dont need an acquittal... They don't need to prove innocence... They are entitled to the presumption of innocence..... Amaral needs evidence to make his claims according to the ECHR past cases... He doesn't have, any evidence
-
They dont need an acquittal... They don't need to prove innocence... They are entitled to the presumption of innocence..... Amaral needs evidence to make his claims according to the ECHR past cases... He doesn't have, any evidence
Goncalo Amaral doesn't need to do anything Davel. The ECHR case does not involve him, remember?
-
Goncalo Amaral doesn't need to do anything Davel. The ECHR case does not involve him, remember?
It involves what he claims.... Remember.... So his claims must be supported by evidence
-
They dont need an acquittal... They don't need to prove innocence... They are entitled to the presumption of innocence..... Amaral needs evidence to make his claims according to the ECHR past cases... He doesn't have, any evidence
What a pity they didn't ask you before they went right ahead and used arguments that you say they didn't need. Lawyers, eh? 8)-)))
-
It involves what he claims.... Remember.... So his claims must be supported by evidence
It only involved that which was declared in the original writ issued on behalf of the McCanns.
If you recall the judge in the court of the first instance said that was about what was published and the effect it had not its veracity.
-
The correct translation of res judicata is força de caso julgado which is the quality conferred to a judicial sentence against which there are no more appeals and cannot be changed and is indiscutable. This is the argument used by the McCanns that the archiving report had the "força de caso julgado" and which the Tribunal da Relação and the SC ruled against.
Events post July 2008 would make two of those events mutually exclusive had the archiving been res judicata.
Which would then beg the question "just what did OG hope to achieve?".
-
It only involved that which was declared in the original writ issued on behalf of the McCanns.
If you recall the judge in the court of the first instance said that was about what was published and the effect it had not its veracity.
If it was, that there would be no ECHR case... The SC judgement was concerned with right to reputation as you will see if you read it.... The, application to annul was also Re, reputation and presumption of innocence.... Which suggests, they we Re planning the, application then
-
It only involved that which was declared in the original writ issued on behalf of the McCanns.
If you recall the judge in the court of the first instance said that was about what was published and the effect it had not its veracity.
Have you seen the, writ... Does it mention damage to reputation
-
If it was, that there would be no ECHR case... The SC judgement was concerned with right to reputation as you will see if you read it.... The, application to annul was also Re, reputation and presumption of innocence.... Which suggests, they we Re planning the, application then
Do we know if there is an "ECHR case", davel? We know that they intended to make an appeal to the ECHR but not what has happened regarding it IMO.
-
Do we know if there is an "ECHR case", davel? We know that they intended to make an appeal to the ECHR but not what has happened regarding it IMO.
Didn't you know Davel knows it has ? He saw a clue iirc. 8(0(*
-
Do we know if there is an "ECHR case", davel? We know that they intended to make an appeal to the ECHR but not what has happened regarding it IMO.
I would say there is enough evidence to show there is a case..particularly the referral to the case in the accounts... And ooking at the evidence I can see no reason why it would be rejected... Can you
-
Any Goading Comments will be removed In Full.
-
If it was, that there would be no ECHR case... The SC judgement was concerned with right to reputation as you will see if you read it.... The, application to annul was also Re, reputation and presumption of innocence.... Which suggests, they we Re planning the, application then
1)Thus far we do not know if there is a case.
All we know is that it is said that an application has been made to the ECtHR.
2)Which was rejected by the Supreme Court as not being relevant to point being tried.
3) So they were expecting the appeal to the SC to be booted out in your opinion then?
-
1)Thus far we do not know if there is a case.
All we know is that it is said that an application has been made to the ECtHR.
2)Which was rejected by the Supreme Court as not being relevant to point being tried.
3) So they were expecting the appeal to the SC to be booted out in your opinion then?
I don't see it that way at, all... The SC never said damage to reputation was not relavent...
-
I would say there is enough evidence to show there is a case..particularly the referral to the case in the accounts... Abd looking at the evidence I can see no reason why it would be rejected... Can you
That referral to the case in the accounts? Can you direct us to it ?
-
I would say there is enough evidence to show there is a case..particularly the referral to the case in the accounts... Abd looking at the evidence I can see no reason why it would be rejected... Can you
Davel I could never say I was a lawyer so would not presume to say whether the McCanns would have a case or not. I could probably cherry pick cases to support my argument.
-
That referral to the case in the accounts? Can you direct us to it ?
It was cited last week.
-
Davel I could never say I was a lawyer so would not presume to say whether the McCanns would have a case or not. I could probably cherry pick cases to support my argument.
I doubt you could cherry pick any... Feel free to prove me wrong... There are plenty of non lawyers, saying the McCanns don't have a case
-
That referral to the case in the accounts? Can you direct us to it ?
http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/FUND_2017.htm
Section 4 page 5.
Spot that weeks "deliberate error" !
-
http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/FUND_2017.htm
Section 4 page 5.
Spot that weeks "deliberate error" !
I’ve seen the accounts. It’s just that I can’t fathom how there’s evidence in there re what Davel claims .
-
I’ve seen the accounts. It’s just that I can’t fathom how there’s evidence in there re what Davel claims .
Look at the very bottom of page 5
-
http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/FUND_2017.htm
Section 4 page 5.
Spot that weeks "deliberate error" !
Ah yes. Stating opinion/hope as fact.
-
Look at the very bottom of page 5
You mean page 7 ...also numbered Page 5 ?
Got it now.
-
Ah yes. Stating opinion/hope as fact.
A couple of nifty bits of misdirection imo.
-
Who has the latest S.P on this then?
-
Who has the latest S.P on this then?
Nothing as yet. It's not on the list of judgements to be published next week so the wait continues.
-
Who has the latest S.P on this then?
Think a simple poll could be added,which'll happen first.
1)Arrest's in the Madeleine case.
2)The case is heard in the ECHR.
3)We get a new primeminister
My money's on 3. (&^&
-
Think a simple poll could be added,which'll happen first.
1)Arrest's in the Madeleine case.
2)The case is heard in the ECHR.
3)We get a new primeminister
My money's on 3. (&^&
I was more inmclined to believe that the choices would be:
1. dead paedo did it - no need for arrests
2. ECHR are rushing through this highly diplomatic induced case(we could end up going to war with Portugual over this)
3. Pigs were seen flying over apartment 5a- one fell and blood was splattered everywhere.
Hmm tough choices.
The ECHR will NOT be making a rush through job just to suit the McCanns and then , yes even then, they will not be declared 'innocent' of anything as is always claimed by some.
-
I was more inmclined to believe that the choices would be:
1. dead paedo did it - no need for arrests
2. ECHR are rushing through this highly diplomatic induced case(we could end up going to war with Portugual over this)
3. Pigs were seen flying over apartment 5a- one fell and blood was splattered everywhere.
Hmm tough choices.
The ECHR will NOT be making a rush through job just to suit the McCanns and then , yes even then, they will not be declared 'innocent' of anything as is always claimed by some.
I agree with everything you hare written Faithlilly. I also believe unless their request gets thrown back at the first hurdle it could be up to another 3 years before an answer is given by the ECHR. If their request is deemed inadmissible then we may never hear, as some applications are considered confidential, therefore this thread could go on indefinitely.
-
I agree with everything you hare written Faithlilly. I also believe unless their request gets thrown back at the first hurdle it could be up to another 3 years before an answer is given by the ECHR. If their request is deemed inadmissible then we may never hear, as some applications are considered confidential, therefore this thread could go on indefinitely.
Thank goodness for small mercies.
-
Thank goodness for small mercies.
Sorry Eleanor, could you explain your post please?
-
So much time and money expended trying to discredit the Portuguese police and Judiciary.
A smear campaign begun by family and friends on 4th May 2007 and continued by the UK media ad nauseum.
Suing the detective who wrote a book about the case.
Highlighting the 'inadequacies' of the Portuguese Police in 'madeleine'
Calling for a review which, it was hoped, would highlight 'mistakes' in the first investigation.
Appealing to the ECHR hoping they'll disagree with the Judiciary of the Portuguese state.
-
So much time and money expended trying to discredit the Portuguese police and Judiciary.
A smear campaign begun by family and friends on 4th May 2007 and continued by the UK media ad nauseum.
Suing the detective who wrote a book about the case.
Highlighting the 'inadequacies' of the Portuguese Police in 'madeleine'
Calling for a review which, it was hoped, would highlight 'mistakes' in the first investigation.
Appealing to the ECHR hoping they'll disagree with the Judiciary of the Portuguese state.
All this and....
Madeleine Beth McCann still missing...all the news has been about the'poorvictim' parents, what about Madelienes story. Would she be gushing about her loving parents if she ever returned? well...
-
So much time and money expended trying to discredit the Portuguese police and Judiciary.
A smear campaign begun by family and friends on 4th May 2007 and continued by the UK media ad nauseum.
Suing the detective who wrote a book about the case.
Highlighting the 'inadequacies' of the Portuguese Police in 'madeleine'
Calling for a review which, it was hoped, would highlight 'mistakes' in the first investigation.
Appealing to the ECHR hoping they'll disagree with the Judiciary of the Portuguese state.
What absolute rubbish imo
You say you joined the forum to correct untruths yet when the McCanns sue amaral to stop him spreading untruths you criticise them... Rank hypocrisy
-
What absolute rubbish imo
You say you joined the forum to correct untruths yet when the McCanns sue amaral to stop him spreading untruths you criticise them... Rank hypocrisy
'Untruths' in their opinion. They could be accused of spreading untruths also, as they can't prove their abduction thesis.
-
What absolute rubbish imo
You say you joined the forum to correct untruths yet when the McCanns sue amaral to stop him spreading untruths you criticise them... Rank hypocrisy
Do we have a cite for Amaral spreading untruths. be remined no crime has been established and his thesis has not be unproved.
-
'Untruths' in their opinion. They could be accused of spreading untruths also, as they can't prove their abduction thesis.
Not untruths in their opinions... Untruths full stop IMO.
-
Do we have a cite for Amaral spreading untruths. be remined no crime has been established and his thesis has not be unproved.
I've cited several already
-
Sorry Eleanor, could you explain your post please?
This Thread could go on indefinitely.
-
'Untruths' in their opinion. They could be accused of spreading untruths also, as they can't prove their abduction thesis.
The McCanns don't have to prove anything.
-
Not untruths in their opinions... Untruths full stop
Clearly you share their opinion.
-
The McCanns don't have to prove anything.
Neither does Amaral. Like the McCanns, he's free to give his opinion.
-
Neither does Amaral. Like the McCanns, he's free to give his opinion.
And to commit Libel. You are right about that.
-
So much time and money expended trying to discredit the Portuguese police and Judiciary.
A smear campaign begun by family and friends on 4th May 2007 and continued by the UK media ad nauseum.
Suing the detective who wrote a book about the case.
Highlighting the 'inadequacies' of the Portuguese Police in 'madeleine'
Calling for a review which, it was hoped, would highlight 'mistakes' in the first investigation.
Appealing to the ECHR hoping they'll disagree with the Judiciary of the Portuguese state.
Please provide cites supporting each of your allegations. Thank you
-
And to commit Libel. You are right about that.
Which court adjudged he did? aside from the court of public opinion?
-
Which court adjudged he did? aside from the court of public opinion?
Why did he not have his book distributed in Britain?
-
Neither does Amaral. Like the McCanns, he's free to give his opinion.
That's what the ECHR will decide... Until they do you are posting opinion
-
Clearly you share their opinion.
It's not opinion... It's fact IMO.
-
Which court adjudged he did? aside from the court of public opinion?
The Court of any opinion that understands the written word. Portugal has got a very real problem in this day and age. But they are still in the pre Revolution days.
-
Look at it this way, the The McCanns lost two court cases realating to Sr Amaral's book "The Truth of The Lie".
Lost as in did not win. Did not win as in the claims in the writs were not upheld by the courts.
There ain't much to say after that.
-
The Court of any opinion that understands the written word. Portugal has got a very real problem in this day and age. But they are still in the pre Revolution days.
You really have a hate on Portugal don't you Eleanor. I had a look earlier at how many cases at ECHR were from each country. Portugal seemed to be one of the countries with the lower quantity of applications as I recall.
-
And to commit Libel. You are right about that.
That's a matter of opinion, not a matter of fact.
-
Please provide cites supporting each of your allegations. Thank you
Do you disagree with one or all of my statements?
-
The Court of any opinion that understands the written word. Portugal has got a very real problem in this day and age. But they are still in the pre Revolution days.
Hmmm,better than a supreme court? or would that be a English perspective.
-
You really have a hate on Portugal don't you Eleanor. I had a look earlier at how many cases at ECHR were from each country. Portugal seemed to be one of the countries with the lower quantity of applications as I recall.
There does seem to be a touch of xenophobia attached to it.
-
You really have a hate on Portugal don't you Eleanor. I had a look earlier at how many cases at ECHR were from each country. Portugal seemed to be one of the countries with the lower quantity of applications as I recall.
No, you are wrong. I love Portugal and have spent some lovely times there. Some during the course of The Glorious Revolution.
It's the hangers on from pre Revolution days that I despise.
-
There does seem to be a touch of xenophobia attached to it.
Hardly Xenophobia. I live in France.
-
No, you are wrong. I love Portugal and have spent some lovely times there. Some during the course of The Glorious Revolution.
It's the hangers on from pre Revolution days that I despise.
Are they in the justice system iyo then.
-
Hardly Xenophobia. I live in France.
I didn't specifically mean you,but hardly a Lusophile though.
-
Are they in the justice system iyo then.
It depends on their ages. Some, obviously. Including Amaral.
-
It depends on their ages. Some, obviously. Including Amaral.
This will impact on an investigation because?
-
You really have a hate on Portugal don't you Eleanor. I had a look earlier at how many cases at ECHR were from each country. Portugal seemed to be one of the countries with the lower quantity of applications as I recall.
I think you are way off in your understanding of supporters... I absolutely love Portugal... Been there several times... Lovely people... I think it's justice system stinks though
-
I think you are way off in your understanding of supporters... I absolutely love Portugal... Been there several times... Lovely people... I think it's justice system stinks though
Did I say you did Davel? My post was to Eleanor not yourself.
-
Did I say you did Davel? My post was to Eleanor not yourself.
You accused Eleanor of hsting Portugal... Absolute rubbish
-
This will impact on an investigation because?
Salazar made The Rules. His Secret Security Services were employed to enforce them. Many of these people reinvented themselves after The Revolution. There were two of them actually. Revolutions, that is.
You should read up on The Revolutions, some really interesting stuff. And more.
There is an amazing film about Aristides Mendes.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aristides_de_Sousa_Mendes
-
Did I say you did Davel? My post was to Eleanor not yourself.
I love Portugal. However, every Member has a right to answer a comment even if not directed to them personally. Perhaps another Rule that you are unaware of.
-
You accused Eleanor of hsting Portugal... Absolute rubbish
Probably as ridiculous as supporters calling sceptics "hxters" and accusing them of hating the McCanns then Davel.
-
I love Portugal. However, every Member has a right to answer a comment even if not directed to them personally. Perhaps another Rule that you are unaware of.
Of course I knew that rule Eleanor but I didn't say all supporters appeared to hate Portugal and Davel was certainly not mentioned. So whether or not he loves Portugal was nothing to do with my post.
-
Probably as ridiculous as supporters calling sceptics "hxters" and accusing them of hating the McCanns then Davel.
no...I have never accused all sceptics of hating the mccanns ,,...just some....the ones who describe them as a loathsome couple....and those who support taht description
-
no...I have never accused all sceptics of hating the mccanns ,,...just some....the ones who describe them as a loathsome couple....and those who support taht description
So why is "the "hxters" a catch all phrase for describing sceptics elsewhere, I have never seen a supporter say otherwise on their own forums.
-
So why is "the "hxters" a catch all phrase for describing sceptics elsewhere, I have never seen a supporter say otherwise on their own forums.
its not a catch all phrase...its a phrase used to describe those who hate the mccanns...
-
its not a catch all phrase...its a phrase used to describe those who hate the mccanns...
We are seriously off topic IMO but just a quick one. How many posters on here would you describe as "hxters" elsewhere Davel? I don't hate the McCanns and I don't think anyone else here does but what would you say
-
Of course I knew that rule Eleanor but I didn't say all supporters appeared to hate Portugal and Davel was certainly not mentioned. So whether or not he loves Portugal was nothing to do with my post.
But you said that I hate Portugal. I don't. Anymore than Davel does. It is a glorious country. We have both been there several times.
But it wasn't half interesting watching The Police marching through The Markets and scaring the shite out of The Market Traders.
And a bunch of armed idiots jumping out of the undergrowth waving their guns around. Fortunately, I don't scare easily, but some of my party did.
Oh, and so many Pig's and Horse's Heads just sitting around on the counters in the heat, no doubt with their brains still in situ. So don't tell me about Peasants and Hygiene and No Cadaver Scent.
Incidentally the term Peasant is a compliment in France. Not sure about Portugal.
-
But you said that I hate Portugal. I don't. Anymore than Davel does. It is a glorious country. We have both been there several times.
But it wasn't half interesting watching The Police marching through The Markets and scaring the shite out of The Market Traders.
And a bunch of armed idiots jumping out of the undergrowth waving their guns around. Fortunately, I don't scare easily, but some of my party did.
Oh, and so many Pig's and Horse's Heads just sitting around on the counters in the heat, no doubt with their brains still in situ. So don't tell me about Peasants and Hygiene and No Cadaver Scent.
Incidentally the term Peasant is a compliment in France. Not sure about Portugal.
Interesting post Eleanor, thank you.
-
We are seriously off topic IMO but just a quick one. How many posters on here would you describe as "hxters" elsewhere Davel? I don't hate the McCanns and I don't think anyone else here does but what would you say
hate.....feel an intense dislike for......I would say given that definition you do hate the mccanns....as do most of the sceptics here
-
Interesting post Eleanor, thank you.
Thank You also.
I don't think this is actually Off Topic. It is about Yuman Rites after all.
-
Snip
And a bunch of armed idiots jumping out of the undergrowth waving their guns around. Fortunately, I don't scare easily, but some of my party did.
Bit like lawless London at the moment.
-
Snip
Bit like lawless London at the moment.
Hardly. They didn't actually shoot any of us. I thought it was hilarious, but then I do have a weird sense of humour.
They thought you see, that The Glorious Revolution would help Portugal and The Human Rights there of. But it all went a bit downhill after that.
-
Do you disagree with one or all of my statements?
Are you refusing to provide substantiating cites to your post when requested?
-
Snip
Bit like lawless London at the moment.
Not to forget the SPG of the 1970s.
The cops in Holland and The Czech Pub are pretty brutal compared to ours. 'twas a sad day when the Sillitoe Method was kicked into touch 8(0(*
Two rules in revolution [study your modern history]
1) The peon is always the peon.
2) The secret policeman is always the secret policeman.
-
Not to forget the SPG of the 1970s.
The cops in Holland and The Czech Pub are pretty brutal compared to ours. 'twas a sad day when the Sillitoe Method was kicked into touch 8(0(*
Two rules in revolution [study your modern history]
1) The peon is always the peon.
2) The secret policeman is always the secret policeman.
So true.
-
Are you refusing to provide substantiating cites to your post when requested?
I'm sorry, Brietta, I can't find any. I will have to say that it was all in my opinion.
-
I'm sorry, Brietta, I can't find any. I will have to say that it was all in my opinion.
That's what I thought. Thank you
-
Are you refusing to provide substantiating cites to your post when requested?
May I have the cite I asked for in my post
« on: September 05, 2018, 11:34:57 AM »
Re: Does Madeleine have the right to be found?
My post was in response to your post where you appeared to have inserted words into Mr Grime's quote that are not actually in the archived document.
-
I think you are way off in your understanding of supporters... I absolutely love Portugal... 1)Been there several times... Lovely people... 2)I think it's justice system stinks though
1) OMG how very like "some of my best friends are.............."
2) Have you had first hand experience which brought you to this conclusion or is it all based on hearsay?
-
May I have the cite I asked for in my post
« on: September 05, 2018, 11:34:57 AM »
Re: Does Madeleine have the right to be found?
My post was in response to your post where you appeared to have inserted words into Mr Grime's quote that are not actually in the archived document.
Here we go again ...
Please provide a link to your initial request and my post ... thank yoy
-
1) OMG how very like "some of my best friends are.............."
2) Have you had first hand experience which brought you to this conclusion or is it all based on hearsay?
That is a very nasty remark, especially as you don't know.
-
hate.....feel an intense dislike for......I would say given that definition you do hate the mccanns....as do most of the sceptics here
So to you we are all "hxters" davel. So whey I mentioned the general grouping of sceptics by supporters are "hxters" I was correct.
I do not hate anyone including the McCanns nor even you.
-
So to you we are all "hxters" davel. So whey I mentioned the general grouping of sceptics by supporters are "hxters" I was correct.
I do not hate anyone including the McCanns nor even you.
can you provide a cite ....the fact that that you would say you dont hate ...even me..is odd...why do you feel the need to say that. I feel many on this forum...including you...intensely dislike the mccanns...and as taht is the definition of hate...if the cap fits dont suffer with a cold head
-
can you provide a cite ....the fact that that you would say you dont hate ...even me..is odd...why do you feel the need to say that. I feel many on this forum...including you...intensely dislike the mccanns...and as taht is the definition of hate...if the cap fits dont suffer with a cold head
I said even you because my post was a reply to you, no other reason. I don't even dislike the McCanns I simply am not sure I believe everything they say. Perhaps you are to full of hate for sceptics to see that not everyone hates or even dislikes. And if the cap fits Davel........
-
I said even you because my post was a reply to you, no other reason. I don't even dislike the McCanns I simply am not sure I believe everything they say. Perhaps you are to full of hate for sceptics to see that not everyone hates or even dislikes. And if the cap fits Davel........
you are wrong again...as i have said before...hate is very distructive... I dont really hate anyone...and as you like to correct my posts...you have used to...instead of too
-
you are wrong again...as i have said before...hate is very distructive... I dont really hate anyone...and as you like to correct my posts...you have used to...instead of too
As you don't hate and I don't hate then perhaps you can accept that others on here do not either.
Thank you for pointing out my rare typo. I will reciprocate by mentioning that it is spelt destructive not distructive. When you make a post with a spelling error a little red line appears below the word which is incorrect. Sometimes the red line doesn't appear as in the case of my "to" post.
-
can you provide a cite ....the fact that that you would say you dont hate ...even me..is odd...why do you feel the need to say that. I feel many on this forum...including you...intensely dislike the mccanns...and as taht is the definition of hate...if the cap fits dont suffer with a cold head
I feel quite sorry for the McCanns. Despite years of insisting that 'Madeleine was abducted' and 'we are innocent' there seem to be many who just don't believe them.
-
I feel quite sorry for the McCanns. Despite years of insisting that 'Madeleine was abducted' and 'we are innocent' there seem to be many who just don't believe them.
How can you possibly feel sorry for people who you believe deprived their own child of a funeral, their family a chance to grieve and who have strung the police, their nearest and dearest and the general public along for 11 years? I don’t think you REALLY feel quite sorry for them at all!
-
As you don't hate and I don't hate then perhaps you can accept that others on here do not either.
Thank you for pointing out my rare typo. I will reciprocate by mentioning that it is spelt destructive not distructive. When you make a post with a spelling error a little red line appears below the word which is incorrect. Sometimes the red line doesn't appear as in the case of my "to" post.
No yours was a grammatical error....
I don't have to accept anything... I am entitled to believe what I wish... And I believe many here... Including you... Have an intense dislike for the McCanns.
-
I feel quite sorry for the McCanns. Despite years of insisting that 'Madeleine was abducted' and 'we are innocent' there seem to be many who just don't believe them.
I feel sorry for the McCann's because Maddie is missing... I doubt they really care what you and others think....
-
No yours was a grammatical error....
I don't have to accept anything... I am entitled to believe what I wish... And I believe many here... Including you... Have an intense dislike for the McCanns.
Believe what you wish Davel. It was a typo.
-
I'm sorry, Brietta, I can't find any. I will have to say that it was all in my opinion.
I think most of them were self evident? I am sure no one needed a cite for the McCanns suing GA.
-
Please cut out the ad Homs.
-
How can you possibly feel sorry for people who you believe deprived their own child of a funeral, their family a chance to grieve and who have strung the police, their nearest and dearest and the general public along for 11 years? I don’t think you REALLY feel quite sorry for them at all!
What you have written is what you think. not what I think.
-
What you have written is what you think. not what I think.
Do you generally feel sorry for people who you believe have committed a crime but who remain at large and who are disbelieved and disliked by many?
-
Here we go again ...
Please provide a link to your initial request and my post ... thank yoy
What sort of link would you like?
You wanna play "I am the chief pencil monitor" games then fine but you are on your own there.
You have enough information and have had for nearly two months.
However you dress it up you misquoted, demonstrably, but refuse to say why or how. That does not set a good example now does it?
We will just take it as your unsubstantiated opinion.
-
Do you generally feel sorry for people who you believe have committed a crime but who remain at large and who are disbelieved and disliked by many?
Why not? I explained why. I certainly wouldn't want to be in their shoes.
-
Why not? I explained why. I certainly wouldn't want to be in their shoes.
Neither would I...
-
What sort of link would you like?
You wanna play "I am the chief pencil monitor" games then fine but you are on your own there.
You have enough information and have had for nearly two months.
However you dress it up you misquoted, demonstrably, but refuse to say why or how. That does not set a good example now does it?
We will just take it as your unsubstantiated opinion.
Give the link to the post you are complaining about as I requested, please. I am beginning to wonder if such a post even exists.
-
Why not? I explained why. I certainly wouldn't want to be in their shoes.
Who would? However I’m surprised you feel sorry for people who in your opinion neglected their children leading to one of them dying and then covering up the death to save their skins. Still, I shall read your future posts with interest, through this new perspective you have revealed.
-
Who would? However I’m surprised you feel sorry for people who in your opinion neglected their children leading to one of them dying and then covering up the death to save their skins. Still, I shall read your future posts with interest, through this new perspective you have revealed.
It's not new, we have discussed this before, when I said I could empathise with them.
-
It's not new, we have discussed this before, when I said I could empathise with them.
I certainly don’t recall that. I do recall you being somewhat judgemental about Kate McCann failing to rush the twins to hospital shortly after Madeleine disappeared. You seem to think she is a very neglectful mother, yet still you claim to empathise with her, astonishing really.
-
I certainly don’t recall that. I do recall you being somewhat judgemental about Kate McCann failing to rush the twins to hospital shortly after Madeleine disappeared. You seem to think she is a very neglectful mother, yet still you claim to empathise with her, astonishing really.
I wonder what would have been said had she actually done that? "Mother flees scene before police arrive"
-
I wonder what would have been said had she actually done that? "Mother flees scene before police arrive"
Hardly fleeing, taking your kids to hospital. It would make more sense than saying she was so worried about her kids that she kept checking they were breathing but did nothing else.
-
I certainly don’t recall that. I do recall you being somewhat judgemental about Kate McCann failing to rush the twins to hospital shortly after Madeleine disappeared. You seem to think she is a very neglectful mother, yet still you claim to empathise with her, astonishing really.
You don't seem to understand what empathy is. It's got nothing to do with approving of someone.
-
You don't seem to understand what empathy is. It's got nothing to do with approving of someone.
And nor it seems do you. You said yesterday you felt sorry for the McCanns. That would suggest sympathy not empathy, yet you also now claim to empathise with someone you also suggest to be both criminally neglectful as a parent and capable of covering up the death of a child caused by their own neglect. So tell us why you feel both sympathy and empathy for them then?
-
And nor it seems do you. You said yesterday you felt sorry for the McCanns. That would suggest sympathy not empathy, yet you also now claim to empathise with someone you also suggest to be both criminally neglectful as a parent and capable of covering up the death of a child caused by their own neglect. So tell us why you feel both sympathy and empathy for them then?
It's quite possible to empathise and sympathise without approving. I can't stand Theresa May, but I can understand how she arrived in her present position (empathy). I can also feel sorry for her even though I think her wounds are self-inflicted.
-
It's quite possible to empathise and sympathise without approving. I can't stand Theresa May, but I can understand how she arrived in her present position (empathy). I can also feel sorry for her even though I think her wounds are self-inflicted.
IMO, a more suitable analogy would be this:
I can empathise and sympathise with someone who accidentally knocks down a child on a zebra crossing because they were driving over the speed limit, who stops after the accident and owns up to their responsibilities. I cannot however empathise or sympathise with that driver if he or she does not stop after the accident and who claims when the police arrive at their door that their car has been stolen, in order to cover up their crime. You claim to be able to empathise and sympathise with the driver in both scenarios, IMO. I find that hard to believe going on the tone of your posts over the years.
-
IMO, a more suitable analogy would be this:
I can empathise and sympathise with someone who accidentally knocks down a child on a zebra crossing because they were driving over the speed limit, who stops after the accident and owns up to their responsibilities. I cannot however empathise or sympathise with that driver if he or she does not stop after the accident and who claims when the police arrive at their door that their car has been stolen, in order to cover up their crime. You claim to be able to empathise and sympathise with the driver in both scenarios, IMO. I find that hard to believe going on the tone of your posts over the years.
You set limits, I don't. Both drivers behaved badly and one was brave enough to own up. The other wasn't, and even made things worse for themselves. One driver was brave and the other was cowardly. You seem to applaud bravery and despise cowardice. I understand that some are brave and some aren't.
-
You set limits, I don't. Both drivers behaved badly and one was brave enough to own up. The other wasn't, and even made things worse for themselves. One driver was brave and the other was cowardly. You seem to applaud bravery and despise cowardice. I understand that some are brave and some aren't.
Well. I have revised my opinion of you, it seems you would give the Son of God a run for his money on the empathy and sympathy stakes. Is there anyone on the planet you don’t feel empathy and sympathy for??
BTW I applaud honesty and have no sympathy or empathy for those who shirk their responsibilities by lying and covering up. My bad.
-
Does the exchange above have any connection to the McCanns appeal to the ECHR?
-
Does the exchange above have any connection to the McCanns appeal to the ECHR?
Started by Sunny I believe who claimed that Eleanor hates Portugal, thus turning it into a discussion about emotions.
-
I feel sorry for the McCann's because Maddie is missing... I doubt they really care what you and others think....
I doubt they really care what you and others think....
Oh but they do.....they shouldn't do.... but they most certainly do...
-
Well. I have revised my opinion of you, it seems you would give the Son of God a run for his money on the empathy and sympathy stakes. Is there anyone on the planet you don’t feel empathy and sympathy for??
BTW I applaud honesty and have no sympathy or empathy for those who shirk their responsibilities by lying and covering up. My bad.
You empathise and sympathise only with those you approve of. I don't make that distinction.
-
You empathise and sympathise only with those you approve of. I don't make that distinction.
Rubbish. There are plenty of people whose actions I disagree with who I also empathise and sympathise with. Where do you draw the line then ? Do you blanket empathise and sympathise with paedophiles? Murderers? Kidnappers? Rapists?
-
You empathise and sympathise only with those you approve of. I don't make that distinction.
Explain please how having previously appeared to find Kate McCann's behaviour odd and inexplicable on the night of the 3rd May you are now also apparently able to understand and share her feelings.?
-
Rubbish. There are plenty of people whose actions I disagree with who I also empathise and sympathise with. Where do you draw the line then ? Do you blanket empathise and sympathise with paedophiles? Murderers? Kidnappers? Rapists?
Your argument has been that it's not possible for me to empathise and sympathise with those I don't approve of. Noe you say you do that too. Therefore you do understand where I'm coming from despite your posts .
-
Your argument has been that it's not possible for me to empathise and sympathise with those I don't approve of. Noe you say you do that too. Therefore you do understand where I'm coming from despite your posts .
Could you give me a cite for this please? Perhaps the difference between us is that I can empathise and sympathise with people's actions I may also disapprove of up to a point. The point is where there actions deliberately cause pain (emotional / phsyical) / suffering / death to others. You seem to be able to have empathy and sympathy for the darkest creatures on God's planet. This makes you almost saint-like in my opinion, and I never thought I ever write that sentence!
ETA: I guess that your undoubted empathy means you don't struggle to understand how Kate said she might be able to forgive Madeleine's (alleged) abductor.
-
You empathise and sympathise only with those you approve of. I don't make that distinction.
When the McCanns reacted angrily to Sharon Osbourne’s public denunciation of them in the media you replied
“A typically arrogant reaction. Only they know the 'true facts' and only they should be allowed to speak about the case. Everyone else should keep their ignorant and ill-informed opinions to themselves. It seems they have given up castigating people for upsetting them and are now using the twins and the wider family in an attempt to portray anyone who criticises them as a heartless monster.
It must be galling to realise that all the money spent on reputation management has been wasted. They still haven't managed to understand that their notion of satisfactory childcare is not shared by others. It isn't anything to do with whether they felt guilty afterwards, it's about the sheer insanity of the notion that it was ever OK in the first place. Can we assume they would have felt no guilt had Madeleine not disappeared?
They still seem stuck in the 'how could criticise us when we lost a child' mindset. Had they not lost a child no-one would have known about their reckless behaviour, but they did and we do. That will never change no matter how much they complain”.
I’ve read it a few times and I’m struggling to find the empathy and sympathy, should I look harder?
-
Could you give me a cite for this please? Perhaps the difference between us is that I can empathise and sympathise with people's actions I may also disapprove of up to a point. The point is where there actions deliberately cause pain (emotional / phsyical) / suffering / death to others. You seem to be able to have empathy and sympathy for the darkest creatures on God's planet. This makes you almost saint-like in my opinion, and I never thought I ever write that sentence!
ETA: I guess that your undoubted empathy means you don't struggle to understand how Kate said she might be able to forgive Madeleine's (alleged) abductor.
Empathy is the ability to understand and share the feelings of another. I can empathise with your 'cowardly driver' because I can understand how his fear of the consequences led him to behave the way he did.
Sympathy involves feelings of pity and sorrow for someone else's misfortune. I can sympathise with the 'cowardly driver even though his misfortune is of his pwn making.
-
Empathy is the ability to understand and share the feelings of another. I can empathise with your 'cowardly driver' because I can understand how his fear of the consequences led him to behave the way he did.
Sympathy involves feelings of pity and sorrow for someone else's misfortune. I can sympathise with the 'cowardly driver even though his misfortune is of his pwn making.
And yet you profess to finding so much of the McCanns' subsequent behaviour after the loss of their child both puzzling and odd. So much for your ability to understand and share their feelings.
-
And yet you profess to finding so much of the McCanns' subsequent behaviour after the loss of their child both puzzling and odd. So much for your ability to understand and share their feelings.
I think that's enough. In my opinion you are trying to prove your points rather than being interested in mine. As far as I'm concerned you can think what you like.
-
I think that's enough. In my opinion you are trying to prove your points rather than being interested in mine. As far as I'm concerned you can think what you like.
On the contrary I'm very interested in how one can claim empathy and sympathy with individuals whose behaviour continues to be a source of great puzzlement to one and who one also believes have possibly carried out very serious crimes which if proven would devastate all those that know and rely upon them. I guess there are people with great empathy and sympathy for Karen Matthews and the Philpotts but I have yet to encounter one have you?
-
Weren't they told to keep silent.
-
Cite or your posts will be removed.
I've used the words... Seems.. and may... That is not stating fact
-
Another interesting point.... Why did Charlie Gards parents go to the ECHR if they could not overide the UK court
-
Another interesting point.... Why did Charlie Gards parents go to the ECHR if they could not overide the UK court
I have no idea but their application was deemed inadmissible.
http://www.familylawweek.co.uk/site.aspx?i=ed178491
-
I have no idea but their application was deemed inadmissible.
http://www.familylawweek.co.uk/site.aspx?i=ed178491
I'm aware of that... But what was their point in going if the UK court decision wad final
-
I'm aware of that... But what was their point in going if the UK court decision wad final
I am surprised you don’t know.
-
I am surprised you don’t know.
The only point would be to overule the UK courts decision IMO.. What's yours
-
The only point would be to overule the UK courts decision IMO.. What's yours
...and you are supposed to be an expert?
-
...and you are supposed to be an expert?
When have I claimed to be an expert ...you don't seem to have an answer
-
When have I claimed to be an expert ...you don't seem to have an answer
Look up “Interim Measures”.
-
Look up “Interim Measures”.
I think you need to understand the purpose of interim measures
The court granted interim measures thus overuling the UK courts.... That shows the ECHR can result in the overuling if a domestic court. The interim measures are in place until a decision is made... The decision to cause the domestic decision to be overuled... I feel you are, denying reality... For the third time why gid Charlis parents go ti the ECHRif it had no power to cause the decision to be overuled... You don't seem to have an answer
-
Look up “Interim Measures”.
Try this one..
If a person is ordered to be deported by the UK courts... And appeals to the ECHR breaches his human rights... Can the UK courts decision be altered... Yes it can.... The domestic courts, decision is not final
-
Try this one..
If a person is ordered to be deported by the UK courts... And appeals to the ECHR breaches his human rights... Can the UK courts decision be altered... Yes it can.... The domestic courts, decision is not final
So which “imminent risk of irreparable harm” came into play in the case the McCanns brought.
-
Try this one..
If a person is ordered to be deported by the UK courts... And appeals to the ECHR breaches his human rights... Can the UK courts decision be altered... Yes it can.... The courts, decision is not final
When a person is ordered to be deported they will often appeal to the ECHR and ask for a delay under Rule 39 Interim measure. Some of these are granted because the ECHR thinks that deportation poses a risk that the applicant will suffer serious and irreparable harm if the deportation goes ahead.
The ECHR doesn't have the power to change decisions made in a State's courts, however;
under no circumstances will the Court set aside a national court's decision.
https://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/Your_Application_ENG.pdf
-
When a person is ordered to be deported they will often appeal to the ECHR and ask for a delay under Rule 39 Interim measure. Some of these are granted because the ECHR thinks that deportation poses a risk that the applicant will suffer serious and irreparable harm if the deportation goes ahead.
The ECHR doesn't have the power to change decisions made in a State's courts, however;
under no circumstances will the Court set aside a national court's decision.
https://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/Your_Application_ENG.pdf
So are you saying the court can delay decision... While it rules... Then once it rules the defendants human rights have been breached the domestic court is then free to deport that person... That is plainly absurd.
My argument is.... Whilst the ECHR cannot overule a decision it can make a judgement which the lawyer acting for the defendant can take to the domestic court to apply to have the judgement overturned... ie.... The SC Judgement is not necessarily final
-
So which “imminent risk of irreparable harm” came into play in the case the McCanns brought.
Point out where I have claimed there is an interim measure in place in the McCann case... I haven't... You raised it..
The whole point is that it seems the SC Judgement may not be final as posters here have claimed... In fact I think it's clear it isnt
-
When a person is ordered to be deported they will often appeal to the ECHR and ask for a delay under Rule 39 Interim measure. Some of these are granted because the ECHR thinks that deportation poses a risk that the applicant will suffer serious and irreparable harm if the deportation goes ahead.
The ECHR doesn't have the power to change decisions made in a State's courts, however;
under no circumstances will the Court set aside a national court's decision.
https://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/Your_Application_ENG.pdf
Explain why they appeal to the ECHR if the judgement cannot be changed... It obviously can be imo
-
Point out where I have claimed there is an interim measure in place in the McCann case... I haven't... You raised it..
The whole point is that it seems the SC Judgement may not be final as posters here have claimed... In fact I think it's clear it isnt
You used interim measures (though not by their proper name) to suggest judgements could be changed. They don’t apply in this case. One reason being they are usually only applicable to defendants and not to those bringing cases.
-
&^&*%
So are you saying the court can delay decision... While it rules... Then once it rules the defendants human rights have been breached the domestic court is then free to deport that person... That is plainly absurd.
My argument is.... Whilst the ECHR cannot overule a decision it can make a judgement which the lawyer acting for the defendant can take to the domestic court to apply to have the judgement overturned... ie.... The SC Judgement is not necessarily final
I would be interested to see a case where a lawyer has succeeded in having a judgement overturned.
-
You used interim measures (though not by their proper name) to suggest judgements could be changed. They don’t apply in this case. One reason being they are usually only applicable to defendants and not to those bringing cases.
Interim measures are not important in this case... You are failing to answer the point I have made... They were raised Re the Charlie Gard case. The point is that the SC judgement is not necessarily final....
-
&^&*%
I would be interested to see a case where a lawyer has succeeded in having a judgement overturned.
Brietta has quoted a case in Portugal where it seems this is happening.... So again... Sigh... What happens to someone who appeals to the ECHR to prevent deportation.... According to you he will be, deported anyway... Which is plainly absurd
-
&^&*%
I would be interested to see a case where a lawyer has succeeded in having a judgement overturned.
convention of human rights.
• In 2010 Aso Mohammed Ibrahim, a Kurdish asylum seeker who caused the death of a 12 year girl in a driving accident, avoided deportation. Tabloid papers seized upon the fact that he had claimed the right to a family life, enshrined in article 8 of the convention, to avoid deportation at an immigration tribunal.
The prime minister remarked of the case: “My personal response is one of great anger that this is allowed to happen. Here we have an Iraqi asylum seeker convicted of an offence that led to the death of a child and yet we are being told that there is no way that this person can be deported to Iraq
-
Brietta has quoted a case in Portugal where it seems this is happening.... So again... Sigh... What happens to someone who appeals to the ECHR to prevent deportation.... According to you he will be, deported anyway... Which is plainly absurd
I think you should wait to see if the mccs get accepted first...
Up to now, they haven't......
It may have already been refused,.... you don't know
Seems silly ...always jumping the gun ....as if you know everything
When in fact you are just the same as everyone else ...know nothing for definite....
-
I think you should wait to see if the mccs get accepted first...
Up to now, they haven't......
It may have already been refused,.... you don't know
Seems silly ...always jumping the gun ....as if you know everything
When in fact you are just the same as everyone else ...know nothing for definite....
I'm pointing out that the, SC judgement may not be final at all.. If it isn't then the case could affect, amaral....
-
I'm pointing out that the, SC judgement may not be final at all.. If it isn't then the case could affect, amaral....
Do we have any evidence of the ECHR overturning a SC judgement in a civil case, not a criminal one.
-
I'm pointing out that the, SC judgement may not be final at all.. If it isn't then the case could affect, amaral....
I'm pointing out SC judgment...maybe final after all.......
If... appeal to ECHR...has been rejected....
-
Do we have any evidence of the ECHR overturning a SC judgement in a civil case, not a criminal one.
According to the ECHR website rules, apply to civil and criminal cases... I presume Charlie, Gard was a civil case
The point I am making is the SC judgement may not be final as posters thought
-
I'm pointing out SC judgment...maybe final after all.......
If... appeal to ECHR...has been rejected....
So it may... Or may not be final
So it may.. Or may not affect amaral
-
I am reviewing everything that was posted yesterday following several complaints. Inappropriate posting of any sort will not be tolerated and especially so given the number of warnings that have a already been given. Sanctions and/or suspensions could well follow.
Members are free to make representation in defence of themselves or others.
-
convention of human rights.
• In 2010 Aso Mohammed Ibrahim, a Kurdish asylum seeker who caused the death of a 12 year girl in a driving accident, avoided deportation. Tabloid papers seized upon the fact that he had claimed the right to a family life, enshrined in article 8 of the convention, to avoid deportation at an immigration tribunal.
The prime minister remarked of the case: “My personal response is one of great anger that this is allowed to happen. Here we have an Iraqi asylum seeker convicted of an offence that led to the death of a child and yet we are being told that there is no way that this person can be deported to Iraq
You provide no cite for your post. Perhaps because it was solely the UK authorities who were involved, not the ECHR. It was the Second Tier Immigration and Asylum Tribunal which refused the UK Border Agency's request that he be deported.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2010/dec/16/iraqi-killed-girl-remain-uk
-
Brietta has quoted a case in Portugal where it seems this is happening.... So again... Sigh... What happens to someone who appeals to the ECHR to prevent deportation.... According to you he will be, deported anyway... Which is plainly absurd
The lawyer has declared his intention to request a review of the decision. We don't know whether that request has been submitted or what the response was if it has. Until we do it doesn't amount to evidence of anything.
-
The lawyer has declared his intention to request a review of the decision. We don't know whether that request has been submitted or what the response was if it has. Until we do it doesn't amount to evidence of anything.
The fact that the lawyer has, declared an intention for a, review is evidence if not proof that a review of the original judgement is, a possibility ....which shows it may not be final
-
You provide no cite for your post. Perhaps because it was solely the UK authorities who were involved, not the ECHR. It was the Second Tier Immigration and Asylum Tribunal which refused the UK Border Agency's request that he be deported.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2010/dec/16/iraqi-killed-girl-remain-uk
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/9239417/European-Court-of-Human-Rights-blocks-more-deportations-from-UK-than-any-other-country.html
-
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/9239417/European-Court-of-Human-Rights-blocks-more-deportations-from-UK-than-any-other-country.html
Thank you for the cite, but I can see no reference to Aso Mohammed Ibrahim.
-
Thank you for the cite, but I can see no reference to Aso Mohammed Ibrahim.
No... There isn't.. I'm busy and posting in a hurry.
It certainly seems that judgements can be reviewed and changed... Amaral is not out of the woods yet
-
The fact that the lawyer has, declared an intention for a, review is evidence if not proof that a review of the original judgement is, a possibility ....which shows it may not be final
In a criminal case. Can this be done in a civil case?
-
In a criminal case. Can this be done in a civil case?
Chsrlue Gard was civil
-
According to the ECHR website rules, apply to civil and criminal cases... I presume Charlie, Gard was a civil case
The point I am making is the SC judgement may not be final as posters thought
The Charlie Gard case was Interim Measures and failed.
-
The Charlie Gard case was Interim Measures and failed.
The application was made to enable Charlie to overturn the UK courts, decision and travel abroad. .the interim measure is put in place awaiting a full decision.... The case was inadmissable.... But not because it was, a civil case
-
Chsrlue Gard was civil
I thought the ECHR didn't get involved in that case?
-
I thought the ECHR didn't get involved in that case?
They applied and it was declared inadmissible.
-
I thought the ECHR didn't get involved in that case?
Charlie Gard: European court rejects plea to intervene in life-support fight
https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/law/2017/jun/27/charlie-gard-european-court-rejects-plea-to-intervene-in-life-support-fight
Case heard by seven judges to overturn the decision of the UK courts and, allow Charlie, to travel for treatment
It proves the domestic courts ruling could be overturned
-
Charlie Gard: European court rejects plea to intervene in life-support fight
https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/law/2017/jun/27/charlie-gard-european-court-rejects-plea-to-intervene-in-life-support-fight
Case heard by seven judges to overturn the decision of the UK courts and, allow Charlie, to travel for treatment
It proves the domestic courts ruling could be overturned
I think you've misread it.
the ECHR said it had, by a majority of the seven judges who considered the written arguments, declared the application inadmissible.
-
I have already posted the link to this but this is the reasoning behind the Charlie Gard case being inadmissible
Home > Judgments > 2017 archive
Gard and Others v United Kingdom
The application to the European Court of Human Rights, brought by the parents of Charlie Gard was declared inadmissible.
The parents of Charlie Gard (CG) argued under Articles 2 and 5 of the convention (on both their own behalf and on behalf of CG) that the hospital had blocked life-sustaining treatment and as such CG was unlawfully deprived of his liberty. Further, they argued under Articles 6 and 8 that the declaration by the High Court and subsequent courts was a disproportionate interference in their parental rights because the test applied had been the "best interests" of the child rather than whether he would suffer "significant harm".
The court considered whether the parents had the standing to bring this application. Under Article 34 (and in accordance with Lambert and Others v France [GC] no. 43043/14), an applicant must be able to claim to be a victim of a violation of the convention. There had been some cases where parents had been able to apply on behalf of their minor children, the two key criteria being (1) the risk that the direct victim will otherwise be deprived of effective protection of his or her rights, and (2) the absence of a conflict of interests between the victim and the applicant.
In this case, the risk that CG would be deprived of effective protection of his rights if the application could not proceed was minimised as CG was represented by an independent professional court-appointed guardian. Further, there was a conflict of interests in that there had been repeated findings in the domestic courts that what the parents sought for CG was not in his best interests. However, the court did not reach a final conclusion on this point as the court went on to examine the substantive arguments.
In respect of the parents' Art. 2 argument - that the hospital has blocked access to life-sustaining treatment - the court found that this argument was manifestly ill-founded. As concluded in Hristozov and Others v Bulgaria no. 47039/11, Art. 2 cannot be interpreted as requiring access to unauthorised medicinal products for the terminally ill to be regulated in any particular way (it was an agreed fact that the nucleoside treatment the parents wished to pursue was experimental, having never been tested on humans or animals).
The court further found that an appropriate framework was in place in domestic law (as previously found in Glass v UK no. 61827/00), that CG's wishes were expressed through his own guardian, that his parents were fully involved in the proceedings and represented, and that the hospital properly applied to the High Court to obtain a legal decision on the appropriate way forward.
There was a lack of clarity as to how the applicants were raising arguments of deprivation of liberty under Art. 5. The availability of a domestic legal framework and the possibility to apply to the domestic courts had already been established in relation to Art. 2 and so the court considered the complaint under Art. 5 was also manifestly ill-founded.
The parents' complaints under Art. 6 and 8, were also found to be manifestly ill-founded. The court found there had been an interference with the Article 8 rights of the parents. However, this interference did not constitute a violation as it is in accordance with the law, is a legitimate aim and is necessary in a democratic society. The UK's legal framework in such cases had already been established in Glass as consistent with the ECHR standards and the interference was aimed at protecting the health, morals, rights and freedoms of a minor and so was a legitimate aim.
The parents argued that the interference with their parental rights based on the "best interests" test of the child was unnecessary, and that the interference would only be justified if there was a risk of "significant harm" to the child. Firstly, the court found that it was appropriate for the treating hospital to turn to the courts as there was a conflict (this had been the point of the ECtHR's criticism in the previous cases of Lambert and Glass where there hadn't been access to court supervision). Secondly, the court considered the "best interests" test was well established in international law but that even if the test was "significant harm", the Court of Appeal and Supreme Court were justified in concluding there was such a risk. The UK Appeal Courts had reviewed the High Court's decision as well as the extensive expert evidence which concluded that CG was exposed to continued pain, suffering and distress and that the experimental treatment had no benefit and would prolong his suffering.
In conclusion, the court considered the framework as a whole had not been shown to be disproportionate. The decisions taken by the domestic courts were meticulous and thorough, ensured that all those concerned were represented throughout, heard high-quality expert evidence, accorded weight to all the arguments raised, and were reviewed at three levels of jurisdiction with clear and extensive reasoning.
The application was declared inadmissible.
Basically sadly Charlie Gard's parents were unlikely ever to have won this case from what I have read above.
http://www.familylawweek.co.uk/site.aspx?i=ed178491
Davel this is a very sad case and I can understand Charlie's parents wanting to do everything they could to save him but do you have an example of a defamation or libel case overturned by the ECHR?
-
I think you've misread it.
the ECHR said it had, by a majority of the seven judges who considered the written arguments, declared the application inadmissible.
I haven't missed anything... Why did Charlie's parents take the case to the, ECHR... answer that simple, question and you will understand
-
I have already posted the link to this but this is the reasoning behind the Charlie Gard case being inadmissible
Home > Judgments > 2017 archive
Gard and Others v United Kingdom
The application to the European Court of Human Rights, brought by the parents of Charlie Gard was declared inadmissible.
The parents of Charlie Gard (CG) argued under Articles 2 and 5 of the convention (on both their own behalf and on behalf of CG) that the hospital had blocked life-sustaining treatment and as such CG was unlawfully deprived of his liberty. Further, they argued under Articles 6 and 8 that the declaration by the High Court and subsequent courts was a disproportionate interference in their parental rights because the test applied had been the "best interests" of the child rather than whether he would suffer "significant harm".
The court considered whether the parents had the standing to bring this application. Under Article 34 (and in accordance with Lambert and Others v France [GC] no. 43043/14), an applicant must be able to claim to be a victim of a violation of the convention. There had been some cases where parents had been able to apply on behalf of their minor children, the two key criteria being (1) the risk that the direct victim will otherwise be deprived of effective protection of his or her rights, and (2) the absence of a conflict of interests between the victim and the applicant.
In this case, the risk that CG would be deprived of effective protection of his rights if the application could not proceed was minimised as CG was represented by an independent professional court-appointed guardian. Further, there was a conflict of interests in that there had been repeated findings in the domestic courts that what the parents sought for CG was not in his best interests. However, the court did not reach a final conclusion on this point as the court went on to examine the substantive arguments.
In respect of the parents' Art. 2 argument - that the hospital has blocked access to life-sustaining treatment - the court found that this argument was manifestly ill-founded. As concluded in Hristozov and Others v Bulgaria no. 47039/11, Art. 2 cannot be interpreted as requiring access to unauthorised medicinal products for the terminally ill to be regulated in any particular way (it was an agreed fact that the nucleoside treatment the parents wished to pursue was experimental, having never been tested on humans or animals).
The court further found that an appropriate framework was in place in domestic law (as previously found in Glass v UK no. 61827/00), that CG's wishes were expressed through his own guardian, that his parents were fully involved in the proceedings and represented, and that the hospital properly applied to the High Court to obtain a legal decision on the appropriate way forward.
There was a lack of clarity as to how the applicants were raising arguments of deprivation of liberty under Art. 5. The availability of a domestic legal framework and the possibility to apply to the domestic courts had already been established in relation to Art. 2 and so the court considered the complaint under Art. 5 was also manifestly ill-founded.
The parents' complaints under Art. 6 and 8, were also found to be manifestly ill-founded. The court found there had been an interference with the Article 8 rights of the parents. However, this interference did not constitute a violation as it is in accordance with the law, is a legitimate aim and is necessary in a democratic society. The UK's legal framework in such cases had already been established in Glass as consistent with the ECHR standards and the interference was aimed at protecting the health, morals, rights and freedoms of a minor and so was a legitimate aim.
The parents argued that the interference with their parental rights based on the "best interests" test of the child was unnecessary, and that the interference would only be justified if there was a risk of "significant harm" to the child. Firstly, the court found that it was appropriate for the treating hospital to turn to the courts as there was a conflict (this had been the point of the ECtHR's criticism in the previous cases of Lambert and Glass where there hadn't been access to court supervision). Secondly, the court considered the "best interests" test was well established in international law but that even if the test was "significant harm", the Court of Appeal and Supreme Court were justified in concluding there was such a risk. The UK Appeal Courts had reviewed the High Court's decision as well as the extensive expert evidence which concluded that CG was exposed to continued pain, suffering and distress and that the experimental treatment had no benefit and would prolong his suffering.
In conclusion, the court considered the framework as a whole had not been shown to be disproportionate. The decisions taken by the domestic courts were meticulous and thorough, ensured that all those concerned were represented throughout, heard high-quality expert evidence, accorded weight to all the arguments raised, and were reviewed at three levels of jurisdiction with clear and extensive reasoning.
The application was declared inadmissible.
Basically sadly Charlie Gard's parents were unlikely ever to have won this case from what I have read above.
http://www.familylawweek.co.uk/site.aspx?i=ed178491
Davel this is a very sad case and I can understand Charlie's parents wanting to do everything they could to save him but do you have an example of a defamation or libel case overturned by the ECHR?
I am making this point.... A domestic courts decision is not final and can be overturned...
Let's get this basic fact sorted first
-
I haven't missed anything... Why did Charlie's parents take the case to the, ECHR... answer that simple, question and you will understand
No decisions by the UK courts were overturned in this case, so what is your point?
-
No decisions by the UK courts were overturned in this case, so what is your point?
For the twentieth time... You posted today that the, ECHR cannot overturn domestic courts, decisions.... That has been taken to mean the SC judgement is final
It's clear that domestic court judgements can be overturned and theteforevthe SC judgement in this case may not be the final decision
-
For the twentieth time... You posted today that the, ECHR cannot overturn domestic courts, decisions.... That has been taken to mean the SC judgement is final
It's clear that domestic court judgements can be overturned and theteforevthe SC judgement in this case may not be the final decision
I have seen no examples of domestic court decisions being overturned.
-
I have seen no examples of domestic court decisions being overturned.
I have shown attempts to overturn... Showing it is an option
-
I have shown attempts to overturn... Showing it is an option
Unless you can show an actual overturning it isn’t a workable option.
-
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chahal_v._United_Kingdom
Interim Measures again.
-
What you cannot deny is that people go to the ECHR to get domestic judgents overturned.. As Charlie Gards, parents, did.... Interim measures were granted until the case, was heard, and the UK decision to deport overturned
In cases of imminent risk of irreparable harm.
-
so you think Charles parents merely requested interim measures and not a judgement... you have a closed mind IMO... We know that the case referred to by Brietta may seek a review of the initial judgement... No interim measures there
They were trying to stop something happening, not something that had already happened. The McCanns sued GA and failed, there is nothing outstanding, they haven’t suffered significant loss from failing. There is no imminent risk of irreparable harm.
-
You are, wrong about Charlie... They were trying to stop something that had happened. The court had ruled the doctors had the right to cease life support and that the parents had no right to remove him from the hospital. The parents, went to the ECHR to get the judgement overturned.
They went to the ECHR because he was going to die.
-
They went to the ECHR because he was going to die.
They went to the ECHR so they could overule the UK courts decision to cease life support....
-
They went to the ECHR so they could overule the UK courts decision to cease life support....
My final word...he was at imminent risk of irreparable harm.
-
https://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/Guide_ECHR_lawyers_ENG.pdf
The ruling by the ECtHR in the case of Steel and Morris v UK was supposed to have been a landmark case with far reaching repercussions and was fanfared as such ........ it never happened.
p.s yes I have read the document linked 8(>((
-
I agree... so are , a lot of people... But that was not the reason an application to the, ECHR was made... It was not made to provide a temporary solution... It was made to overule the UK courts, and allow charlie to travel...
It failed. It was ruled inadmissible by the ECHR.
-
but their intention was to overule the UK court....I dont think anyone can argue with that
Intentions which were thwarted.
-
yet their lawyers must ahve thought it possible...and the judges considered it...so they must ahve thought it possible
What it achieved was the delay in turning off the life support. Which judges considered what?
-
it failed in what it wanted to achieve....
In its decision in the case of Gard and Others v. the United Kingdom (application no. 39793/17)
today the European Court of Human Rights has by a majority endorsed in substance the approach by
the domestic courts and thus declared the application inadmissible. The decision is final.
Consequently, the Court also considered that it was appropriate to lift the interim measure under
Rule 39 of its Rules of Court.
The case concerned Charlie Gard, a baby suffering from a rare and fatal genetic disease. In February
2017, the treating hospital sought a declaration from the domestic courts as to whether it would be
lawful to withdraw artificial ventilation and provide Charlie with palliative care. Charlie’s parents also
asked the courts to consider whether it would be in the best interests of their son to undergo
experimental treatment in the U.S.A.. The domestic courts concluded that it would be lawful for the
hospital to withdraw life sustaining treatment because it was likely that Charlie would suffer
significant harm if his present suffering was prolonged without any realistic prospect of
improvement, and the experimental therapy would be of no effective benefit.
In the proceedings before the European Court, Charlie’s parents argued – on their own behalf and
that of their son – under Article 2 (right to life) that the hospital has blocked access to life sustaining
treatment (in the U.S.A.) for Charlie and under Article 5 (right to liberty and security) that, as a
result, he is unlawfully deprived of his liberty. They further alleged under Articles 6 (right to a fair
trial) and 8 (right to respect for private and family life) that the domestic court decisions amounted
to an unfair and disproportionate interference in their parental rights.
The Court bore in mind the considerable room for manoeuvre (“wide margin of appreciation”) left to
the authorities in the sphere concerning access to experimental medication for the terminally ill and
in cases raising sensitive moral and ethical issues, reiterating that it was not for the Court to
substitute itself for the competent domestic authorities. From this perspective, the Court gave
weight to the fact that a domestic legal framework – compatible with the Convention – was available
governing both access to experimental medication as well as withdrawal of life sustaining treatment.
Furthermore, the domestic court decisions had been meticulous, thorough and reviewed at three
levels of jurisdiction with clear and extensive reasoning giving relevant and sufficient support for
their conclusions; the domestic courts had direct contact with all those concerned (notably, they had
heard from all the medical experts involved in the treatment as well as experts instructed by the
applicants, from Charlie’s parents themselves and from an independent professional appointed as
the child’s guardian, had received expert reports from other doctors of international standing in the
field and had visited the hospital); it was appropriate for the hospital to approach the courts in the
UK in the event of doubts as to the best decision to take; and, lastly, the domestic courts had
concluded, on the basis of extensive, high-quality expert evidence, that it was most likely Charlie was
being exposed to continued pain, suffering and distress and that undergoing experimental treatment
with no prospects of success would offer no benefit, and continue to cause him significant harm.
The full text of this decision will be available tomorrow on the Court’s website
I don't know what your point is.
-
as my reply has been deleted...though it broke no forum rules...I cannot respond
You agreed to have your posts deleted. And you did it again http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=10309.msg497933#msg497933.
-
Charlie Gards parents applied to have such an order overturned.. The fact they applied to do this suggests it is possible
-
Charlie Gards parents applied to have such an order overturned.. The fact they applied to do this suggests it is possible
Please provide a cite for this application.
-
Please provide a cite for this application.
Post 2567 ..have you read it
-
My understanding is that you can make any sort of application - you just fill out the form. and submit.
Doesn't mean it has any chance of being accepted though.
-
Post 2567 ..have you read it
That isn't an application to have an order overturned in my opinion. If you think it is, you need to explain how you came to that conclusion.
-
That isn't an application to have an order overturned in my opinion. If you think it is, you need to explain how you came to that conclusion.
So why did they go to the EcHr... Read the red highlight..
I've, asked you many tines, and you can't answer
They wanted ti take their sin to the, US... The, UK court said no... So they appealed to the ECHR... it's all their in the post
-
So why did they go to the EcHr... Read the red highlight..
I've, asked you many tines, and you can't answer
They wanted ti take their sin to the, US... The, UK court said no... So they appealed to the ECHR... it's all their in the post
They wanted the ECHR to agree that GOSH and the UK courts had deprived their son and them of their human rights. The ECHR didn't agree. Even if it had, it had no power to overturn the ruling of the UK courts.
Therefore their application to the ECHR wasn't an application to overturn an order.
-
They wanted the ECHR to agree that GOSH and the UK courts had deprived their son and them of their human rights. The ECHR didn't agree. Even if it had, it had no power to overturn the ruling of the UK courts.
Therefore their application to the ECHR wasn't an application to overturn an order.
IMO it’s sole intention was to get a stay on action via interim measures.
-
IMO it’s sole intention was to get a stay on action via interim measures.
I agree. The parents (or their lawyers) must have known that their parental rights could be overruled by the courts if it seemed they were making the wrong decisions. I also think it's inappropriate to use this case to try to prove a point.
-
I agree. The parents (or their lawyers) must have known that their parental rights could be overruled by the courts if it seemed they were making the wrong decisions. I also think it's inappropriate to use this case to try to prove a point.
I don't think it's innapropriate... You and slarti have been discussing it for two days... I have every sympathy for the parents
-
IMO it’s sole intention was to get a stay on action via interim measures.
That isn't what the official documents show... It shows the parents, wanted the UK court overuled to enable them to take Charlie to the, US
-
That isn't what the official documents show... It shows the parents, wanted the UK court overuled to enable them to take Charlie to the, US
You said the "parents applied to have such an order overturned". Where is that written?
-
You said the "parents applied to have such an order overturned". Where is that written?
Read the article posted... The discussion is going nowhere.. You believe what you want and so wil I
-
Read the article posted... The discussion is going nowhere.. You believe what you want and so wil I
I have and it says no such thing.
-
I have and it says no such thing.
. Charlie’s parents also
asked the courts to consider whether it would be in the best interests of their son to undergo
experimental treatment in the U.S.A..
under Article 2 (right to life) that the hospital has blocked access to life sustaining
treatment (in the U.S.A.) for Charlie and under Article 5 (right to liberty and security) that, as a
-
36
Can the ECHR invalidate laws or decisions of national courts that violate the Convention?
No. The ECHR can only state that certain actions, omissions, laws or court decisions on the
part of a State violate the Convention. It cannot invalidate or annul such acts. States are,
however, bound by the findings of the ECHR, in that they are required to ensure that ongoing
violations of the Convention are brought to an end, and that no such violations occur in the
future.
Sections 37 to 47 deal with "The Teeth" that the ECHR has.
Nothing exactly ferocious. More like "let's see if we can reach an agreement over a cup of tea"
-
. Charlie’s parents also
asked the courts to consider whether it would be in the best interests of their son to undergo
experimental treatment in the U.S.A..
under Article 2 (right to life) that the hospital has blocked access to life sustaining
treatment (in the U.S.A.) for Charlie and under Article 5 (right to liberty and security) that, as a
But didn't apply to have a Supreme Court ruing overturned. Probably because the case never reached the Supreme Court;
Permission to appeal was refused on the grounds that there was no arguable point of law
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charlie_Gard_case#Legal_proceedings
-
But didn't apply to have a Supreme Court ruing overturned. Probably because the case never reached the Supreme Court;
Permission to appeal was refused on the grounds that there was no arguable point of law
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charlie_Gard_case#Legal_proceedings
The European court of human rights has rejected an appeal by the parents of a critically ill baby that he should be allowed to undergo experimental treatment in the US.
The decision by the Strasbourg court closes off the last legal avenue of appeal for the family of Charlie Gard and follows a similar ruling by the UK’s supreme court.
The judgment also lifts a court order under which doctors at Great Ormond Street hospital in London had been required to maintain life support treatment for the 10-month-old child who has brain damage and a rare genetic condition.
https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/law/2017/jun/27/charlie-gard-european-court-rejects-plea-to-intervene-in-life-support-fight.
-
The European court of human rights has rejected an appeal by the parents of a critically ill baby that he should be allowed to undergo experimental treatment in the US.
The decision by the Strasbourg court closes off the last legal avenue of appeal for the family of Charlie Gard and follows a similar ruling by the UK’s supreme court.
The judgment also lifts a court order under which doctors at Great Ormond Street hospital in London had been required to maintain life support treatment for the 10-month-old child who has brain damage and a rare genetic condition.
https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/law/2017/jun/27/charlie-gard-european-court-rejects-plea-to-intervene-in-life-support-fight.
This case took place in the High Court. Therefore the parents never applied to overturn a ruling by the Supreme Court. They asked permission to appeal to the SC which was refused. They then applied to the ECHR and an Interim Order was issued which the SC ratified, telling the High Court to wait for the ECHR decision. That decision was that they had nothing to add. The Interim Order was lifted and the decision of the High Court then went ahead.
-
This case took place in the High Court. Therefore the parents never applied to overturn a ruling by the Supreme Court. They asked permission to appeal to the SC which was refused. They then applied to the ECHR and an Interim Order was issued which the SC ratified, telling the High Court to wait for the ECHR decision. That decision was that they had nothing to add. The Interim Order was lifted and the decision of the High Court then went ahead.
I think that has already been established... What hasn't... Is why they went to the ECHR... It's obvious to me.... To overturn the SC decision and take Charlie to the, US
-
I think that has already been established... What hasn't... Is why they went to the ECHR... It's obvious to me.... To overturn the SC decision and take Charlie to the, US
The SC wasn't preventing them, the High Court was. You are clearly unable to cite any case where someone has tried, let alone succeeded in having a Supreme Court decision overturned, so you might want to stop your pathetic (imo) attempts now.
-
The SC wasn't preventing them, the High Court was. You are clearly unable to cite any case where someone has tried, let alone succeeded in having a Supreme Court decision overturned, so you might want to stop your pathetic (imo) attempts now.
You still have not been able to come up with a, reason why Charlie's, parents, applied to the ECHR.. You either don't understand IR are in denial.. Imo
-
You still have not been able to come up with a, reason why Charlie's, parents, applied to the ECHR.. You either don't understand IR are in denial.. Imo
Desperation?
Possibly a bit like the McCanns?
-
Desperation?
Possibly a bit like the McCanns?
Desperation is not a, reason... Try again
-
You still have not been able to come up with a, reason why Charlie's, parents, applied to the ECHR.. You either don't understand IR are in denial.. Imo
They were clutching at straws, not understanding what the ECHR could or could not do , not thinking through the best interests of Charlie imo.
-
Desperation is not a, reason... Try again
Of course it is a reason, they were clutching at straws as would most parents.
-
It was the lawyers, who made the, application.... So perhaps, they did not understand the law
-
It was the lawyers, who made the, application.... So perhaps, they did not understand the law
You asked why did Charlie's parents apply ? Now you question the lawyers for not understanding the law tantamount to blaming them ?
-
It was the lawyers, who made the, application.... So perhaps, they did not understand the law
Or perhaps the lawyers rubbed their hands with glee at some more money, regardless of whether they thought the case was possible to win or not.
-
Or perhaps the lawyers rubbed their hands with glee at some more money, regardless of whether they thought the case was possible to win or not.
Do you really think I was really suggesting the lawyers didn't understand the law
-
It was the lawyers, who made the, application.... So perhaps, they did not understand the law
There is no excuse for that seeing as how the ECHR publish a document entitled "Questions and Answers For Lawyers".
-
Can anyone tell me what the Charly Gard case has to do with the McCann application?
-
Do you really think I was really suggesting the lawyers didn't understand the law
Did I say you did Davel?
-
Can anyone tell me what the Charly Gard case has to do with the McCann application?
Absolutely nothing Alice. I have asked Davel for a cite of a civil defamation or libel case being overturned by the ECHR but I don't think I have had a response yet.
-
Absolutely nothing Alice. I have asked Davel for a cite of a civil defamation or libel case being overturned by the ECHR but I don't think I have had a response yet.
Why are you asking for a cite for something I have never claimed... What I am claiming is this..
Posters have claimed that the SC judgement is final and any ruling from the ECHR cannot change it.
Brietta posted a link to a recent case where it appears that following a successful ECHR it seems the defendant will ask for a review of the Portuguese, court decision... Which suggests that the SC judgement us not final and can be changed following an ECHR judgement
-
Why are you asking for a cite for something I have never claimed... What I am claiming is this..
Posters have claimed that the SC judgement is final and any ruling from the ECHR cannot change it.
Brietta posted a link to a recent case where it appears that following a successful ECHR it seems the defendant will ask for a review of the Portuguese, court decision... Which suggests that the SC judgement us not final and can be changed following an ECHR judgement
The ECHR cannot change a SC judgement .
-
The ECHR cannot change a SC judgement .
You obviously haven't been following the discussion... I have never claimed they can.
-
You obviously haven't been following the discussion... I have never claimed they can.
So what you're claiming is that once the ECHR has given it's judgement then the SC will have to change it's judgement ?
-
So what you're claiming is that once the ECHR has given it's judgement then the SC will have to change it's judgement ?
I haven't claimed that... That's the problem.. You and other posters contradict me but you don't understand what I am saying
-
I haven't claimed that
Suggested it then ?
Now you're saying once again ....because I've noticed this is what you do... other posters don't understand what you're saying.
-
Suggested it then ?
Now you're saying once again ....because I've noticed this is what you do... other posters don't understand what you're saying.
Not suggested it either.... Only the SC can review it's judgement and perhaps change it.... As is seems to be what may happen in the case posted by Brietta
-
Not suggested it either.... Only the SC can review it's judgement and perhaps change it.... As is seems to be what may happen in the case posted by Brietta
So let clarify exactly why the McCanns have gone to the ECHR?
They want the latter to rule that the SC judgement was wrong and so they'd better change it ? *%87
-
You still have not been able to come up with a, reason why Charlie's, parents, applied to the ECHR.. You either don't understand IR are in denial.. Imo
I will say it slowly for you.
This thread is about the McCann's application to the ECHR.
This discussion is about whether a Supreme Court decision can be overturned.
The Charlie Gard case is irrelevant because it wasn't dealt with by the Supreme Court.
-
I will say it slowly for you.
This thread is about the McCann's application to the ECHR.
This discussion is about whether a Supreme Court decision can be overturned.
The Charlie Gard case is irrelevant because it wasn't dealt with by the Supreme Court.
The case I have quoted from Briettas post concerns Portugal...the point I am making is... Is the SC judgement final.. I would say it may not be...
-
The case I have quoted from Briettas post concerns Portugal...the point I am making is... Is the SC judgement final.. I would say it may not be...
Just speculation then.
-
Just speculation then.
Who knows... I've always said... May not be.... It's just that some don't read the posts properly
-
Who knows... I've always said... May not be.... It's just that some don't read the posts properly
So why say it then Davel? In your hypothetical ECHR case where the McCanns win and the SC changes their judgement do the McCanns get to keep the fund money and Goncalo Amaral must pay them the money they wanted?
-
So why say it then Davel? In your hypothetical ECHR case where the McCanns win and the SC changes their judgement do the McCanns get to keep the fund money and Goncalo Amaral must pay them the money they wanted?
No court will ever rule in favour of parents who sadly violated their own child's human rights, refused to cooperate fully with the police charged with finding that child and went out of their way to destroy people who questioned their rather dubious version of events.
-
No court will ever rule in favour of parents who sadly violated their own child's human rights.
What a silly thing to say. Were Madeleine’s human rights mentioned as being violated by her parents ever, at any stage of the proceedings?
-
No court will ever rule in favour of parents who sadly violated their own child's human rights, refused to cooperate fully with the police charged with finding that child and went out of their way to destroy people who questioned their rather dubious version of events.
You obviously have zero knowledge of the law
-
So why say it then Davel? In your hypothetical ECHR case where the McCanns win and the SC changes their judgement do the McCanns get to keep the fund money and Goncalo Amaral must pay them the money they wanted?
Why say it ?... Because it's a discussion forum... Where we discuss things....
-
What a silly thing to say. Were Madeleine’s human rights mentioned as being violated by her parents ever, at any stage of the proceedings?
The Judges aren't stupid. The parents have a bloody cheek in seeking human rights when they denied those very same human rights to their daughter the night they went out and left her unprotected.
-
You obviously have zero knowledge of the law
The Law in Portugal is influenced very heavily by family values so I am not in the least surprised that both the Portuguese Appeal Court and Supreme Court ruled against the McCanns.
-
The Judges aren't stupid. The parents have a bloody cheek in seeking human rights when they denied those very same human rights to their daughter the night they went out and left her unprotected.
Judges don’t make decisions based on emotional reactions such as those you are exhibiting.
-
Who knows... I've always said... May not be.... It's just that some don't read the posts properly
Others don't write them properly either.
-
Others don't write them properly either.
It's much more important to be able to understand
-
It's much more important to be able to understand
When posters are posting nonsense you mean? i think most people understand that.
-
When posters are posting nonsense you mean? i think most people understand that.
That's a matter of opinion. It has been accepted ad a fact on this forum that a SC judgement is final and cannot be altered... I believe that is not true... And have provided evidence to support my belief
-
You should understand that's a matter of opinion. It has been accepted ad a fact on this forum that a SC judgement is final and cannot be altered... I believe that is not true
You can believe what you like but if you want others to agree with your beliefs you have to provide evidence. It remains to be seen what happens in the Cruz case but in my opinion it won't succeed because;
"The European Court held that, whether or not it should be done, it did not call into question the final outcome of the case"
Ler mais em: https://www.cmjornal.pt/portugal/detalhe/tribunal-europeu-dos-direitos-do-homem-da-razao-a-carlos-cruz
The Charlie Gard case wasn't relevant, despite your efforts to suggest it was.
-
You can believe what you like but if you want others to agree with your beliefs you have to provide evidence. It remains to be seen what happens in the Cruz case but in my opinion it won't succeed because;
"The European Court held that, whether or not it should be done, it did not call into question the final outcome of the case"
Ler mais em: https://www.cmjornal.pt/portugal/detalhe/tribunal-europeu-dos-direitos-do-homem-da-razao-a-carlos-cruz
The Charlie Gard case wasn't relevant, despite your efforts to suggest it was.
The very fact that a review is being considered in the Cruz case is evidence... And the Charlie Gard case, was relevant...
-
The very fact that a review is being considered in the Cruz case is evidence... And the Charlie Gard case, was relevant...
I suggest you forget those two cases and try to find evidence of a Supreme Court decision being overturned.
-
The very fact that a review is being considered in the Cruz case is evidence... And the Charlie Gard case, was relevant...
The Cruz case is a criminal case and the Charlie Gard case appears to never being able to succeed and was deemed inadmissible.
There is nothing to stop anyone applying to the ECHR the question appears to be whether they will consider it fully or deem it inadmissible IMO.
-
The Cruz case is a criminal case and the Charlie Gard case appears to never being able to succeed and was deemed inadmissible.
There is nothing to stop anyone applying to the ECHR the question appears to be whether they will consider it fully or deem it inadmissible IMO.
charlie gards case was quite fully considered...the ECHR looked closely at the evidence from the uk courts
-
charlie gards case was quite fully considered...the ECHR looked closely at the evidence from the uk courts
I imagine they would look closely at all cases but as I said before Charlie Gard's case was deemed inadmissible
http://www.familylawweek.co.uk/site.aspx?i=ed178491
I do accept that it went to a panel of judges though. Perhaps that was because of the urgent tragic nature of the case rather than the chance of Charlie's parents being successful.
-
I imagine they would look closely at all cases but as I said before Charlie Gard's case was deemed inadmissible
http://www.familylawweek.co.uk/site.aspx?i=ed178491
I do accept that it went to a panel of judges though. Perhaps that was because of the urgent tragic nature of the case rather than the chance of Charlie's parents being successful.
The panel of seven judges ruled on the legal decisions of the English courts and decided that at each step of the way the decisions made were impeccable in law.
If their deliberations had gone the other way and the decisions of the English courts had not been upheld ... in my opinion Charlie's parents would have been able to take him to America for treatment, if they had been allowed entry.
-
The panel of seven judges ruled on the legal decisions of the English courts and decided that at each step of the way the decisions made were impeccable in law.
If their deliberations had gone the other way and the decisions of the English courts had not been upheld ... in my opinion Charlie's parents would have been able to take him to America for treatment, if they had been allowed entry.
Of course Brietta but the court didn't agree with Charlie's parents case so you point is moot IMO. They were given the indication that they could succeed by their lawyers, so they went to the ECHR and failed.
It seems that a significant proportion of claimants fail in the ECHR and from reading the ECHR court judgement I can see why there's was deemed inadmissible. Charlie Gard's parents case was deemed to be unusual so it went to the full panel of 7 judges.
THE EXAMINATION OF YOUR APPLICATION
1. Judicial formations
Once the Court is in possession of all the information it needs to
examine your case, your application will be allocated to one of the
Court’s judicial formations, depending on the type of case: a single
judge, a Committee or a Chamber.
¨ If your application is clearly inadmissible because it does not meet
all the required admissibility criteria, it will be dealt with by a
single judge. The inadmissibility decision given by that judge is
final and it will be communicated to you. It is not possible to
challenge the inadmissibility decision or request any further
information about it. The Court will close the case and the file
will be destroyed at a later date.
¨ If your case is considered to be a repetitive case, which raises an
issue on which the Court has already ruled in a number of cases,
it will be handled by a Committee of 3 judges. In this case, a
letter explaining the procedure will be sent to you. Once again,
the Court will contact you if and when necessary.
¨ If your case is not considered to be a repetitive case, it will be
examined by a Chamber of 7 judges. The Chamber may still
declare the case inadmissible and, if it does, that decision will
be final, but if it considers the case admissible it will examine the
merits of your complaint
https://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/Your_Application_ENG.pdf
-
The panel of seven judges ruled on the legal decisions of the English courts and decided that at each step of the way the decisions made were impeccable in law.
If their deliberations had gone the other way and the decisions of the English courts had not been upheld ... in my opinion Charlie's parents would have been able to take him to America for treatment, if they had been allowed entry.
Whatever, it still has nothing to do with overturning Supreme Court decisions.
-
Of course Brietta but the court didn't agree with Charlie's parents case so you point is moot IMO. They were given the indication that they could succeed by their lawyers, so they went to the ECHR and failed.
It seems that a significant proportion of claimants fail in the ECHR and from reading the ECHR court judgement I can see why there's was deemed inadmissible. Charlie Gard's parents case was deemed to be unusual so it went to the full panel of 7 judges.
THE EXAMINATION OF YOUR APPLICATION
1. Judicial formations
Once the Court is in possession of all the information it needs to
examine your case, your application will be allocated to one of the
Court’s judicial formations, depending on the type of case: a single
judge, a Committee or a Chamber.
¨ If your application is clearly inadmissible because it does not meet
all the required admissibility criteria, it will be dealt with by a
single judge. The inadmissibility decision given by that judge is
final and it will be communicated to you. It is not possible to
challenge the inadmissibility decision or request any further
information about it. The Court will close the case and the file
will be destroyed at a later date.
¨ If your case is considered to be a repetitive case, which raises an
issue on which the Court has already ruled in a number of cases,
it will be handled by a Committee of 3 judges. In this case, a
letter explaining the procedure will be sent to you. Once again,
the Court will contact you if and when necessary.
¨ If your case is not considered to be a repetitive case, it will be
examined by a Chamber of 7 judges. The Chamber may still
declare the case inadmissible and, if it does, that decision will
be final, but if it considers the case admissible it will examine the
merits of your complaint
https://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/Your_Application_ENG.pdf
It seems we are not going to agree so I dont really see the point of sceptics claiming their opinion as fact. The parents solicitors applied to the court allow them to seek tratment for Charlie...the fact that they did suggests it was possible to overturn the UK court. The ECHR didnt say its none of our business...they considered the case and rejected it. IMO there nust be a possibility in general of the ECHR judgement leading to the reversal of a domestic courts decision.
-
Whatever, it still has nothing to do with overturning Supreme Court decisions.
yes it does imo...you are stating your opinion as fact...It was an attempt to overturn a domestic courts decision....the ECHR did not simply say...we cannot overturn the decision...they gave all the reasons they agreed with it
-
yes it does imo...you are stating your opinion as fact...It was an attempt to overturn a domestic courts decision....the ECHR did not simply say...we cannot overturn the decision...they gave all the reasons they agreed with it
"Domestic Courts" or, bearing in mind the thread title "Supreme Courts"?
-
Of course Brietta but the court didn't agree with Charlie's parents case so you point is moot IMO. They were given the indication that they could succeed by their lawyers, so they went to the ECHR and failed.
It seems that a significant proportion of claimants fail in the ECHR and from reading the ECHR court judgement I can see why there's was deemed inadmissible. Charlie Gard's parents case was deemed to be unusual so it went to the full panel of 7 judges.
THE EXAMINATION OF YOUR APPLICATION
1. Judicial formations
Once the Court is in possession of all the information it needs to
examine your case, your application will be allocated to one of the
Court’s judicial formations, depending on the type of case: a single
judge, a Committee or a Chamber.
¨ If your application is clearly inadmissible because it does not meet
all the required admissibility criteria, it will be dealt with by a
single judge. The inadmissibility decision given by that judge is
final and it will be communicated to you. It is not possible to
challenge the inadmissibility decision or request any further
information about it. The Court will close the case and the file
will be destroyed at a later date.
¨ If your case is considered to be a repetitive case, which raises an
issue on which the Court has already ruled in a number of cases,
it will be handled by a Committee of 3 judges. In this case, a
letter explaining the procedure will be sent to you. Once again,
the Court will contact you if and when necessary.
¨ If your case is not considered to be a repetitive case, it will be
examined by a Chamber of 7 judges. The Chamber may still
declare the case inadmissible and, if it does, that decision will
be final, but if it considers the case admissible it will examine the
merits of your complaint
https://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/Your_Application_ENG.pdf
We need to remind ourselves that parents do not have rights regarding their children, they only have duties, the principal duty being to act in their children’s best interests. This has been part of the fabric of our law and our society for a long time. Third, if we are concerned with the language of rights, it is, of course, children who have rights; any rights that parents have exist only to protect their children’s rights.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/jul/24/charlie-gard-tragic-respect-courts
____________________________________________________________________________________
"In truth, there are no winners here. One thing is for sure though." Connie Yates
____________________________________________________________________________________
The European judges said it was “not for the court to substitute itself for the competent domestic authorities”. British court judgments in the case had been “meticulous”, the ECHR noted.
It said: “The domestic courts had concluded, on the basis of extensive, high-quality expert evidence, that it was most likely Charlie was being exposed to continued pain, suffering and distress and that undergoing experimental treatment with no prospects of success would offer no benefit, and continue to cause him significant harm.”
https://www.theguardian.com/law/2017/jun/27/charlie-gard-european-court-rejects-plea-to-intervene-in-life-support-fight
____________________________________________________________________________________
In Charlie's case the seven judges of the European Court considered and deliberated on the case brought before them on Charlie's behalf before pronouncing their judgement.
Which was to concur with the deliberations and conclusions of the judges of the English courts.
Had they found that the English courts had erred in the application of the law based on medical evidence as far as Charlie was concerned, in my opinion their ruling would have been different and just as legally binding.
Therefore Charlie's case was heard in Europe.
-
"Domestic Courts" or, bearing in mind the thread title "Supreme Courts"?
At the supreme court hearing, the family’s lawyer, Richard Gordon QC, told judges: “The issue is whether the state has the power to intrude on decisions the parents have made in order to mandate that child’s death before it might come to an end. These are model parents trying to do all they possibly can for the benefit of their child. Their view on what is best for Charlie differs from the court.”
https://www.theguardian.com/law/2017/jun/27/charlie-gard-european-court-rejects-plea-to-intervene-in-life-support-fight
-
It seems we are not going to agree so I dont really see the point of sceptics claiming their opinion as fact. The parents solicitors applied to the court allow them to seek tratment for Charlie...the fact that they did suggests it was possible to overturn the UK court. The ECHR didnt say its none of our business...they considered the case and rejected it. IMO there nust be a possibility in general of the ECHR judgement leading to the reversal of a domestic courts decision.
I can't remember posting opinion as fact and I certainly didn't do that in the post you are replying to. However I do agree that Charlie Gard's parents went to the ECHR to get the Supreme Court ruling overturned so they could get the treatment they wanted from the USA.
So I believe in some circumstances, for example life or death, or deprivation of liberty, the ECHR may be able to overturn a Supreme Court ruling. Whether that would apply in a civil libel case though ....
-
I can't remember posting opinion as fact and I certainly didn't do that in the post you are replying to. However I do agree that Charlie Gard's parents went to the ECHR to get the Supreme Court ruling overturned so they could get the treatment they wanted from the USA.
So I believe in some circumstances, for example life or death, or deprivation of liberty, the ECHR may be able to overturn a Supreme Court ruling. Whether that would apply in a civil libel case though ....
I have made it clear my posts are my opinion but it's interesting that you accept that the ECHR does have more power than some, are willing to accept
-
At the supreme court hearing, the family’s lawyer, Richard Gordon QC, told judges: “The issue is whether the state has the power to intrude on decisions the parents have made in order to mandate that child’s death before it might come to an end. These are model parents trying to do all they possibly can for the benefit of their child. Their view on what is best for Charlie differs from the court.”
https://www.theguardian.com/law/2017/jun/27/charlie-gard-european-court-rejects-plea-to-intervene-in-life-support-fight
At which;
Permission to appeal was refused on the grounds that there was no arguable point of law.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charlie_Gard_case#Supreme_Court
-
At which;
Permission to appeal was refused on the grounds that there was no arguable point of law.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charlie_Gard_case#Supreme_Court
So not because the ECHR had no jurisdiction
-
So not because the ECHR had no jurisdiction
Therefore any subsequent developments would have had nothing to do with the Supreme Court. Therefore it's off topic.
-
In your opinion again...
I would say it is on topic... I've given my opinion... It has just, as much weight as your opinion.
-
WE need to revisit the McCanns case.
No one was on trial, innocence or guilt of Amaral or the McCanns was not established, because NO ONE WAS ON TRIAL.
Not having someone on trial means two things: there is no need of presumptions of innocence
and no one was found guilty or not guilty of any crime.
Amaral wrote a book on the police thinking at that time, the McCanns didn't like it and made all sorts of crazy claims WHICH they could not prove.
The supreme court made a final judgement on the claims and came to the conclusion that Amaral had excersised his right to freedom of speech.
Full stop.
However, the McCanns lawyer made a statement about the McCanns being 'innocent' and this was replied with it had not been established.
Nothing bad about this ,so you can introduce as many other cases ay you wish, it won't change a thing.
-
WE need to revisit the McCanns case.
No one was on trial, innocence or guilt of Amaral or the McCanns was not established, because NO ONE WAS ON TRIAL.
Not having someone on trial means two things: there is no need of presumptions of innocence
and no one was found guilty or not guilty of any crime.
Amaral wrote a book on the police thinking at that time, the McCanns didn't like it and made all sorts of crazy claims WHICH they could not prove.
The supreme court made a final judgement on the claims and came to the conclusion that Amaral had excersised his right to freedom of speech.
Full stop.
However, the McCanns lawyer made a statement about the McCanns being 'innocent' and this was replied with it had not been established.
Nothing bad about this ,so you can introduce as many other cases ay you wish, it won't change a thing.
That was the week that was,still nothing from the ECHR,wonder how many times that can be repeated each Sunday.
-
That was the week that was,still nothing from the ECHR,wonder how many times that can be repeated each Sunday.
until we hear something....
-
until we hear something....
Or as I think, we won't. I believe the McCanns have petitioned anonymously and if they lose or it is deemed inadmissible then they will hardly publicise that. Of course if they are successful (which I doubt) then they will proclaim it from the rooftops IMO.
-
Or as I think, we won't. I believe the McCanns have petitioned anonymously and if they lose or it is deemed inadmissible then they will hardly publicise that. Of course if they are successful (which I doubt) then they will proclaim it from the rooftops IMO.
As was posted just over a year ago:
http://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/Questions_Answers_ENG.pdf
[b]What is the European Court of Human Rights not able to do for me?[/b]
The Court does not act as a court of appeal in relation to national
courts; it does not rehear cases, it cannot quash, vary or revise
their decisions.
The Court will not intercede directly on your behalf with
the authority you are complaining about. In exceptional
circumstances the Court may, however, grant interim measures.
As a matter of practice it only does so where there is a serious
risk of physical harm to the applicant.
The Court will not help you find or pay a lawyer to draw up your
application.
The Court cannot give you any information on legal provisions
in force in the State against which your complaints are directed.
I was concerned for a while that the ECtHR did not understand its own powers. I am however now put at ease to a certain extent by the knowledge that a few members of this forum will be able to correct the ECtHR should the ECtHR err. I am not sure how that mechanism works but I am sure someone will come along shortly to tell us.
-
As was posted just over a year ago:
http://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/Questions_Answers_ENG.pdf
[b]What is the European Court of Human Rights not able to do for me?[/b]
The Court does not act as a court of appeal in relation to national
courts; it does not rehear cases, it cannot quash, vary or revise
their decisions.
The Court will not intercede directly on your behalf with
the authority you are complaining about. In exceptional
circumstances the Court may, however, grant interim measures.
As a matter of practice it only does so where there is a serious
risk of physical harm to the applicant.
The Court will not help you find or pay a lawyer to draw up your
application.
The Court cannot give you any information on legal provisions
in force in the State against which your complaints are directed.
I was concerned for a while that the ECtHR did not understand its own powers. I am however now put at ease to a certain extent by the knowledge that a few members of this forum will be able to correct the ECtHR should the ECtHR err. I am not sure how that mechanism works but I am sure someone will come along shortly to tell us.
Who are you thinking of Alice? 8**8:/:
-
As I understand it, once an application has been submitted, further dialogue is not allowed .
This being the case, I feel the mcCanns must be be permanently on tenterhooks - today might be the day they hear something.
How disappointing each day must be when nothing arrives and how frustrating that they can't discover what is happening to their application.
This assumes that they haven't yet received their rejection notice.
-
As I understand it, once an application has been submitted, further dialogue is not allowed .
This being the case, I feel the mcCanns must be be permanently on tenterhooks - today might be the day they hear something.
How disappointing each day must be when nothing arrives and how frustrating that they can't discover what is happening to their application.
This assumes that they haven't yet received their rejection notice.
I think you are misjudging the situation. In my opinion there can be nothing more important to them than news of Madeleine. I think that has concentrated their daily ration of 'tenterhooks' since the day and hour Madeleine disappeared.
-
As was posted just over a year ago:
http://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/Questions_Answers_ENG.pdf
[b]What is the European Court of Human Rights not able to do for me?[/b]
The Court does not act as a court of appeal in relation to national
courts; it does not rehear cases, it cannot quash, vary or revise
their decisions.
The Court will not intercede directly on your behalf with
the authority you are complaining about. In exceptional
circumstances the Court may, however, grant interim measures.
As a matter of practice it only does so where there is a serious
risk of physical harm to the applicant.
The Court will not help you find or pay a lawyer to draw up your
application.
The Court cannot give you any information on legal provisions
in force in the State against which your complaints are directed.
I was concerned for a while that the ECtHR did not understand its own powers. I am however now put at ease to a certain extent by the knowledge that a few members of this forum will be able to correct the ECtHR should the ECtHR err. I am not sure how that mechanism works but I am sure someone will come along shortly to tell us.
Some of us are aware of all that.... In fact I was probably one of the only member of the forum who understood on what grounds the McCann's could make an application... Most sceptics believed the hype elsewhere that they had no grounds
-
Just a heads up of I think to the time scale involved,at the moment in the case of López Ribalda and Others v. Spain going to the court again just for example,The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 28 December 2012.
The hearing of this took place on 9th January 2018 some 5 yrs and a couple of moths after,don't expect any thing any time soon imo.
In this case article 8 was used the court finding in favour of the applicants, Spain is now appealing that,so its not all cut and dried once a verdict is reached.
For reference hearings in November.
https://echr.coe.int/Pages/home.aspx?p=home
-
Just a heads up of I think to the time scale involved,at the moment in the case of López Ribalda and Others v. Spain going to the court again just for example,The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 28 December 2012.
The hearing of this took place on 9th January 2018 some 5 yrs and a couple of moths after,don't expect any thing any time soon imo.
In this case article 8 was used the court finding in favour of the applicants, Spain is now appealing that,so its not all cut and dried once a verdict is reached.
For reference hearings in November.
https://echr.coe.int/Pages/home.aspx?p=home
One rather feels that a ECHR application is just kicking things into the long grass.
-
One rather feels that a ECHR application is just kicking things into the long grass.
Its certainly not a quick fix.
-
One rather feels that a ECHR application is just kicking things into the long grass.
Obtaining justice is important... However long it takes..
I think the Portuguese verdict was just so unjust it had to be challenged
-
Obtaining justice is important... However long it takes..
I think the Portuguese verdict was just so unjust it had to be challenged
"Obtaining justice is important... However long it takes"..
I agree with that sentiment entirely.
"I think the Portuguese verdict was just so unjust it had to be challenged"
Based on the evidence provided by the McCanns- I can't agree on this statement. Sorry.
-
"Obtaining justice is important... However long it takes"..
I agree with that sentiment entirely.
"I think the Portuguese verdict was just so unjust it had to be challenged"
Based on the evidence provided by the McCanns- I can't agree on this statement. Sorry.
I don't think they expected to have to prove anything, just complain like they did in the UK. I think Amaral was supposed to fold and make a deal.
-
I don't think they expected to have to prove anything, just complain like they did in the UK. I think Amaral was supposed to fold and make a deal.
as amarals claims were clearly defamatory Im sure he was expextced to fold...... dont think anyone could have expected such a perverse judgement as the SC upheld......as the ECHR will confirm.....all my opinion
-
I don't think they expected to have to prove anything, just complain like they did in the UK. I think Amaral was supposed to fold and make a deal.
Yes everything was to be on their terms. what a laugh when Gerry was shot down by the judge... heehee what a hoot. He was asked to shut up. Oh my how that went down a treat. The witnesses were' friends' no independant or expert witnesses were availiable. maybe because there are none.
-
Yes everything was to be on their terms. what a laugh when Gerry was shot down by the judge... heehee what a hoot. He was asked to shut up. Oh my how that went down a treat. The witnesses were' friends' no independant or expert witnesses were availiable. maybe because there are none.
and amaral has been shot down by the Sun...and not a whimper from him...just the start imo
-
and amaral has been shot down by the Sun...and not a whimper from him...just the start imo
I'm sure it'll have a bearing on what SY aren't doing as well.
-
“Kate and Gerry are not going to let him get away with what he said about them.”
But they face a huge wait for potential justice, with their pal remarking: “It could take up to eight years by which time Madeleine, if she is still out there, would be a young adult into her 20s.”
The ECHR stated today that the case has not yet been dealt with and there is “no fixed time for examining it.”
An ECHR spokesperson said: “The case McCann and Healy v Portugal is still under consideration and there is no fixed time for examining it. There is no date fixed date for any judgement or decision to be delivered.”
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/7665071/madeleine-mccanns-parents-slam-ex-cop-who-has-cashed-in-350k-by-accusing-them-of-covering-up-her-death/
-
“Kate and Gerry are not going to let him get away with what he said about them.”
But they face a huge wait for potential justice, with their pal remarking: “It could take up to eight years by which time Madeleine, if she is still out there, would be a young adult into her 20s.”
The ECHR stated today that the case has not yet been dealt with and there is “no fixed time for examining it.”
An ECHR spokesperson said: “The case McCann and Healy v Portugal is still under consideration and there is no fixed time for examining it. There is no date fixed date for any judgement or decision to be delivered.”
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/7665071/madeleine-mccanns-parents-slam-ex-cop-who-has-cashed-in-350k-by-accusing-them-of-covering-up-her-death/
Thanks carlymichelle.
To me it would seem that the ECHR hasn't even looked at the case presented by the McCanns. At least we now can be certain that they have presented an application.
-
Thanks carlymichelle.
To me it would seem that the ECHR hasn't even looked at the case presented by the McCanns. At least we now can be certain that they have presented an application.
Didn't we already know that? I thought I did.
-
Didn't we already know that? I thought I did.
It was previously unconfirmed, I believe, certainly by the Court.
-
Thanks carlymichelle.
To me it would seem that the ECHR hasn't even looked at the case presented by the McCanns. At least we now can be certain that they have presented an application.
It would be unprecedented for the ECHR to make any comment whatsoever. Applicants are told not to contact the court with queries, so I'd be surprised if it spoke to anyone else.
-
It would be unprecedented for the ECHR to make any comment whatsoever. Applicants are told not to contact the court with queries, so I'd be surprised if it spoke to anyone else.
I suppose if that is the case, then it is impossible for anyone to confirm that Tracey's claim of a spokesperson's statement is actually true ?{)(**
-
I suppose if that is the case, then it is impossible for anyone to confirm that Tracey's claim of a spokesperson's statement is actually true ?{)(**
Why McCann and Healy v Portugal I wonder? She was Kate Marie Healy McCann in the Portuguese proceedings.
-
Why after months of silence from the parents are these stories coming out now ? Surely this is old news ?
Although the narrative of the pieces appears to be their application to the ECHR look a little deeper and the thread that runs through them all is Madeleine is alive and they are not guilty.
I don’t believe that’s a coincidence.
-
Why McCann and Healy v Portugal I wonder? She was Kate Marie Healy McCann in the Portuguese proceedings.
I dare say we'll have an 'expert' along shortly to explain 8(0(*
-
Why after months of silence from the parents are these stories coming out now ? Surely this is old news ?
Although the narrative of the pieces appears to be their application to the ECHR look a little deeper and the thread that runs through them all is Madeleine is alive and they are not guilty.
I don’t believe that’s a coincidence.
Lots of ranting from 'sources'. I too am wondering why this sudden flurry of non news. Perhaps it's nothing more than Nick Pisa needing a payout.
-
Lots of ranting from 'sources'. I too am wondering why this sudden flurry of non news. Perhaps it's nothing more than Nick Pisa needing a payout.
Ranting? What a strange choice of words.
-
Why after months of silence from the parents are these stories coming out now ? Surely this is old news ?
Although the narrative of the pieces appears to be their application to the ECHR look a little deeper and the thread that runs through them all is Madeleine is alive and they are not guilty.
I don’t believe that’s a coincidence.
Maybe they've got wind of Amaral taking some kind of action, such as suing the UK press. One of their biggest P.R. tactics IMO is to play the victim and give him the role of the vindictive one. The ECHR application is a chance to do that, even if they know there's no progress.
-
Maybe they've got wind of Amaral taking some kind of action, such as suing the UK press. One of their biggest P.R. tactics IMO is to play the victim and give him the role of the vindictive one. The ECHR application is a chance to do that, even if they know there's no progress.
What grounds would amaral... A convicted perjurer and therefore liar........ Have to sue the UK press
-
Maybe they've got wind of Amaral taking some kind of action, such as suing the UK press. One of their biggest P.R. tactics IMO is to play the victim and give him the role of the vindictive one. The ECHR application is a chance to do that, even if they know there's no progress.
I don’t think this has anything to do with Amaral.
-
Ranting? What a strange choice of words.
In my opinion this is a rant, the anger and passion are difficult to miss;
“By continuing to spout these wicked lies, Mr Amaral is hampering the official police and public hunt for her. Money rolling in for him from books and DVD’s is almost irrelevant, it’s a side issue.
“Kate and Gerry firmly believe their daughter could still be out there and waiting to be found.
"It’s not about compensation and damages and who wins this amount or not, it is about the truth being accurately portrayed.
"Kate and Gerry don’t care about his money, he may be cashing in on their daughter’s disappearance and their misery, but they ultimate goal is to shut him up.
“If his book can no longer be sold, having once been briefly banned in the past, people can’t read his dreadful lies. If people think Madeleine is dead, as he suggests, why would any searches continue?”
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/7665071/madeleine-mccanns-parents-slam-ex-cop-who-has-cashed-in-350k-by-accusing-them-of-covering-up-her-death/
The source seems to be repeating assertions made in the Libel trial which the McCanns were unable to prove. They seem to be living in the past.
-
What grounds would amaral... A convicted perjurer and therefore liar........ Have to sue the UK press
Maybe you don't understand what libel is. The papers print something untrue and anyone can sue them, no matter how 'naughty' others think they have been.
'"The news published by the Daily Mail and other British newspapers about an alleged lawsuit I would have brought against the McCann is completely false. I did not file any lawsuit or demand any compensation from the McCann", Gonçalo Amaral told us, today after questioned about a story published by that tabloid, saying that the McCann may have to pay him 750,000 pounds for compensation because of a complaint filed by him, wiping out the Fund for the search of Maddie.
"The case reported by the 'Daily Mail' concerns a complaint filled by the McCann themselves with the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg against the Portuguese State. If that court decides any compensation must be paid, it can only be the Portuguese State to pay them, McCann, for failures of the Portuguese Justice system. If they lose the case, they will never, under any circumstances, have to pay any compensation to anyone”, said the former investigator of Polícia Judiciária.''
https://gazetadigitalmadeleinecase.blogspot.com/2018/09/goncalo-amaral-daily-mail-story-is.html (https://gazetadigitalmadeleinecase.blogspot.com/2018/09/goncalo-amaral-daily-mail-story-is.html)
Amarals conviction was based on Cipriano's lies in case you haven't heard, she got 7 months added onto her sentence.
-
In my opinion this is a rant, the anger and passion are difficult to miss;
“By continuing to spout these wicked lies, Mr Amaral is hampering the official police and public hunt for her. Money rolling in for him from books and DVD’s is almost irrelevant, it’s a side issue.
“Kate and Gerry firmly believe their daughter could still be out there and waiting to be found.
"It’s not about compensation and damages and who wins this amount or not, it is about the truth being accurately portrayed.
"Kate and Gerry don’t care about his money, he may be cashing in on their daughter’s disappearance and their misery, but they ultimate goal is to shut him up.
“If his book can no longer be sold, having once been briefly banned in the past, people can’t read his dreadful lies. If people think Madeleine is dead, as he suggests, why would any searches continue?”
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/7665071/madeleine-mccanns-parents-slam-ex-cop-who-has-cashed-in-350k-by-accusing-them-of-covering-up-her-death/
The source seems to be repeating assertions made in the Libel trial which the McCanns were unable to prove. They seem to be living in the past.
Rant is a negative description, of course you would see it that way.
-
"“If his book can no longer be sold, having once been briefly banned in the past, people can’t read his dreadful lies. If people think Madeleine is dead, as he suggests, why would any searches continue?”''
That makes no sense. Scotland Yard were searching for a body 4 years ago and Operation Grange continues.
-
Maybe you don't understand what libel is. The papers print something untrue and anyone can sue them, no matter how 'naughty' others think they have been.
'"The news published by the Daily Mail and other British newspapers about an alleged lawsuit I would have brought against the McCann is completely false. I did not file any lawsuit or demand any compensation from the McCann", Gonçalo Amaral told us, today after questioned about a story published by that tabloid, saying that the McCann may have to pay him 750,000 pounds for compensation because of a complaint filed by him, wiping out the Fund for the search of Maddie.
"The case reported by the 'Daily Mail' concerns a complaint filled by the McCann themselves with the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg against the Portuguese State. If that court decides any compensation must be paid, it can only be the Portuguese State to pay them, McCann, for failures of the Portuguese Justice system. If they lose the case, they will never, under any circumstances, have to pay any compensation to anyone”, said the former investigator of Polícia Judiciária.''
https://gazetadigitalmadeleinecase.blogspot.com/2018/09/goncalo-amaral-daily-mail-story-is.html (https://gazetadigitalmadeleinecase.blogspot.com/2018/09/goncalo-amaral-daily-mail-story-is.html)
Amarals conviction was based on Cipriano's lies in case you haven't heard, she got 7 months added onto her sentence.
How so?
-
Maybe you don't understand what libel is. The papers print something untrue and anyone can sue them, no matter how 'naughty' others think they have been.
'"The news published by the Daily Mail and other British newspapers about an alleged lawsuit I would have brought against the McCann is completely false. I did not file any lawsuit or demand any compensation from the McCann", Gonçalo Amaral told us, today after questioned about a story published by that tabloid, saying that the McCann may have to pay him 750,000 pounds for compensation because of a complaint filed by him, wiping out the Fund for the search of Maddie.
"The case reported by the 'Daily Mail' concerns a complaint filled by the McCann themselves with the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg against the Portuguese State. If that court decides any compensation must be paid, it can only be the Portuguese State to pay them, McCann, for failures of the Portuguese Justice system. If they lose the case, they will never, under any circumstances, have to pay any compensation to anyone”, said the former investigator of Polícia Judiciária.''
https://gazetadigitalmadeleinecase.blogspot.com/2018/09/goncalo-amaral-daily-mail-story-is.html (https://gazetadigitalmadeleinecase.blogspot.com/2018/09/goncalo-amaral-daily-mail-story-is.html)
Amarals conviction was based on Cipriano's lies in case you haven't heard, she got 7 months added onto her sentence.
I understand what libel is and I understand the cipriano case... What you have said is totally wrong
-
You owe me a cite or explanation for how you saw the Cipriano trial transcripts which you alleged in an earlier post.
I think I did also ask if you actually knew what a trial transcript is.
-
Rant is a negative description, of course you would see it that way.
I loved this bit;
"Kate and Gerry don’t care about his money, he may be cashing in on their daughter’s disappearance and their misery, but they ultimate goal is to shut him up.
Isn't it too late to shut him up? It's ten years since he released his book. It has been widely read in Portugal, other European countries and on the internet. It wasn't found libelous and they were unable to prove it damaged any investigation or search for their daughter. Shutting Amaral up will make no difference at all to anything at this juncture in my opinion.
-
I loved this bit;
"Kate and Gerry don’t care about his money, he may be cashing in on their daughter’s disappearance and their misery, but they ultimate goal is to shut him up.
Isn't it too late to shut him up? It's ten years since he released his book. It has been widely read in Portugal, other European countries and on the internet. It wasn't found libelous and they were unable to prove it damaged any investigation or search for their daughter. Shutting Amaral up will make no difference at all to anything at this juncture in my opinion.
The McCanns have been partially effective in their goal of shutting up Amaral. He hasn't published his book in the UK yet.
With a waning interest in the case I'd say a second book will be a flop at this stage.
-
The McCanns have been partially effective in their goal of shutting up Amaral. He hasn't published his book in the UK yet.
With a waning interest in the case I'd say a second book will be a flop at this stage.
You have a cite for this, or is it just your opinion ?
-
I loved this bit;
"Kate and Gerry don’t care about his money, he may be cashing in on their daughter’s disappearance and their misery, but they ultimate goal is to shut him up.
Isn't it too late to shut him up? It's ten years since he released his book. It has been widely read in Portugal, other European countries and on the internet. It wasn't found libelous and they were unable to prove it damaged any investigation or search for their daughter. Shutting Amaral up will make no difference at all to anything at this juncture in my opinion.
Don't you think it will be very damaging to amaral and Portugal if it's found that Portugal has denied the McCann's their human rights
-
Don't you think it will be very damaging to amaral and Portugal if it's found that Portugal has denied the McCann's their human rights
I wonder what will happen if they fail at the ECHR, Davel?
-
You have a cite for this, or is it just your opinion ?
Yes I can see it in the forum. There are a lot less posts to read than a year ago IMO.
-
I wonder what will happen if they fail at the ECHR, Davel?
Unless the ECHR publish the result, we might never hear.
Do they publish every rejection?
-
Yes I can see it in the forum. There are a lot less posts to read than a year ago IMO.
Hardly a cite, more an interpretation.
-
I loved this bit;
"Kate and Gerry don’t care about his money, he may be cashing in on their daughter’s disappearance and their misery, but they ultimate goal is to shut him up.
Isn't it too late to shut him up? It's ten years since he released his book. It has been widely read in Portugal, other European countries and on the internet. It wasn't found libelous and they were unable to prove it damaged any investigation or search for their daughter. Shutting Amaral up will make no difference at all to anything at this juncture in my opinion.
IMO Amaral will be making a career out of his connection with this case until his dying day. The McCanns have as much likelihood of preventing this as they had of shutting up Tony Bennett, sad but true. You see, IMO these two ..... have no sense of decency or morals, hence why they blithely continue with their arrogance, lies and stupidity, reveling in their involvement and notoriety..
-
Hardly a cite, more an interpretation.
John or the Admin may have a counter showing daily posts or even just the number of visitors to the site on a year by year basis.
I know when I first arrived here 2.5 years ago the forum commonly would have over 100 people (guests) reading the forum. Currently "95 Guests are viewing this board". I haven't seen it over 100 for a while.
-
I wonder what will happen if they fail at the ECHR, Davel?
Based on past cases I don't see them failing... IMO they have a very strong case
-
John or the Admin may have a counter showing daily posts or even just the number of visitors to the site on a year by year basis.
I know when I first arrived here 2.5 years ago the forum commonly would have over 100 people (guests) reading the forum. Currently "95 Guests are viewing this board". I haven't seen it over 100 for a while.
The number of guests exceed well over 100 most days Rob, currently at 175. In fact the number of new member registrations has risen recently compared to a few months back. The long dark nights sees more people online too which is reflected in seasonal stats.
-
The number of guests exceed well over 100 most days Rob, currently at 175. In fact the number of new member registrations has risen recently compared to a few months back.
Are you reading the same line as I am? "Robittybob1, Davel, carlymichelle, ShiningInLuz, Vertigo Swirl (+ 2 Hidden) and 87 Guests are viewing this board." I'm not looking at the whole forum but the McCann board alone.
I see on this page http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php visitors are over 170, but that is the whole board IMO.
-
Are you reading the same line as I am? "Robittybob1, Davel, carlymichelle, ShiningInLuz, Vertigo Swirl (+ 2 Hidden) and 87 Guests are viewing this board." I'm not looking at the whole forum but the McCann board alone.
I see on this page http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php visitors are over 170, but that is the whole board IMO.
Sos Rob, I thought you meant the forum stats. I think interest in Madeleine is waning but that is to be expected after more than eleven years.
-
Don't you think it will be very damaging to amaral and Portugal if it's found that Portugal has denied the McCann's their human rights
I don't know. Has it damaged the UK when they have been found guilty by the ECHR?
-
IMO Amaral will be making a career out of his connection with this case until his dying day. The McCanns have as much likelihood of preventing this as they had of shutting up Tony Bennett, sad but true. You see, IMO these two ..... have no sense of decency or morals, hence why they blithely continue with their arrogance, lies and stupidity, reveling in their involvement and notoriety..
Quite. Shutting people up isn't in their power however many court cases they instigate. They are wasting their time and the Fund's money in my opinion.
-
I don't know. Has it damaged the UK when they have been found guilty by the ECHR?
do YOU not remember psoting this...
If, by some chance, the ECHR finds that Portugal has breached the McCann's human rights they will have achieved more than if they had defeated Amaral. They will have discredited not just him, but his entire country.
its one of your posts I beleive
-
Based on past cases I don't see them failing... IMO they have a very strong case
Every case is unique. IMO they have a very remote chance of succeeding.
-
Every case is unique. IMO they have a very remote chance of succeeding.
every case follows similar rules on law....on what evidence do you base your belief
-
Don't you think it will be very damaging to amaral and Portugal if it's found that Portugal has denied the McCann's their human rights
No why would it be damaging?
-
No why would it be damaging?
Post 2700.....gunit seems to think it would be
-
Post 2700.....gunit seems to think it would be
Oh I am sorry I thought it was you who thought it might be damaging. I am glad to hear you are not so foolish as to belive it would be.
-
Oh I am sorry I thought it was you who thought it might be damaging. I am glad to hear you are not so foolish as to belive it would be.
Apologies accepted
-
Apologies accepted
Perhaps it was you not G-Unit, Davel.
Don't you think it will be very damaging to amaral and Portugal if it's found that Portugal has denied the McCann's their human rights
G-Unit just replied to your post.
Link http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=8465.msg500598#msg500598
-
Perhaps it was you not G-Unit, Davel.
Don't you think it will be very damaging to amaral and Portugal if it's found that Portugal has denied the McCann's their human rights
G-Unit just replied to your post.
Link http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=8465.msg500598#msg500598
Mine is a question in light of the post made by gunit.... A post she now does not want to seem to acknowledge
-
Mine is a question in light of the post made by gunit.... A post she now does not want to seem to acknowledge
And G-Unit's post was.
I loved this bit;
"Kate and Gerry don’t care about his money, he may be cashing in on their daughter’s disappearance and their misery, but they ultimate goal is to shut him up.
Isn't it too late to shut him up? It's ten years since he released his book. It has been widely read in Portugal, other European countries and on the internet. It wasn't found libelous and they were unable to prove it damaged any investigation or search for their daughter. Shutting Amaral up will make no difference at all to anything at this juncture in my opinion.
So explain your point please.
-
And G-Unit's post was.
I loved this bit;
"Kate and Gerry don’t care about his money, he may be cashing in on their daughter’s disappearance and their misery, but they ultimate goal is to shut him up.
Isn't it too late to shut him up? It's ten years since he released his book. It has been widely read in Portugal, other European countries and on the internet. It wasn't found libelous and they were unable to prove it damaged any investigation or search for their daughter. Shutting Amaral up will make no difference at all to anything at this juncture in my opinion.
So explain your point please.
I already have done.... Gunit seems to want to disown her post where she says a victory for the McCann's would humiliate not only amaral... But Portugal too..
I think she's absolutely right
-
UK media accused of trailing fake McCann stories to “pressure the European Court”
By Natasha Donn
Algarve Resident
Published 29 Sept 2018
As a new funding deadline approaches for Operation Grange - the UK police inquiry that has spent over €12 million ‘searching for Madeleine McCann - British newspapers have been running with “fake stories” centring on the possibility that the Madeleine Fund is in danger of being wiped out by a new court action lodged by former PJ detective Gonçalo Amaral.
The Mail has inferred that a court case brought by Amaral is “due to start in the next few weeks” while the Sun describes the situation as a “Euro court showdown”.
The truth is that the case due to be heard has been instigated by the McCanns themselves and has nothing whatsoever to do with former PJ coordinator Gonçalo Amaral, who has been at pains to distance himself from media hype ever since the McCann’s long-running case to sue him for €1 million failed in the Supreme Court, Portugal’s final court of jurisdiction (click here).
Since that time, costs incurred by the McCanns (and awarded against them) have been left hanging.
The couple’s bid to overturn the Supreme Court judgement has failed twice (click here and click here), thus the jury is definitely out on the merits of this appeal to the European Court of Human Rights.
But as to the case being anything to do with Amaral, the former detective has been in touch to put the record straight:
“There are stories being printed saying I am taking the couple to court. It’s a lie. I have never received any kind of indemnity from them and I have never asked for one.
“The case they have lodged in the European court is not against me, but the Portuguese State.
“These lies just serve to make out that they are victims, to ask for more money and to pressure the European Court”.
The father-of-two who has long since maintained that the McCanns have set out to “assassinate” his “civil position”, said: “They should explain how much of the money of the Fund they have spent on court cases.
“For example, how much they have spent on lawyers fees. These were thousands of pounds not spent on looking for their daughter”.
Amaral’s treatment by the British press has been constant for the last decade.
This week the Sun has called him “disgraced” (when in fact he won the case taken out against him by the McCanns at least three times) and his theory that the parents could have covered up their daughter’s accidental death “shameful” and “ludicrous”.
As to the possibility that the Madeleine Fund could be “wiped out” if the European Court dismisses the McCann’s appeal, this is not news. The situation of the Fund was highlighted by all newspapers in March last year. In fact, Jerry Lawton of the Daily Star referred to the McCanns “going for broke” and using the Madeleine Fund to pay for their legal fees, even though this was something they had originally vowed they would never do (click here).
With the deadline for a decision on further funding for the Metropolitan Police search approaching, other UK newspapers have highlighted “an honest interview” with Madeleine’s father Gerry where he discusses his struggles with depression as a result of the stress of losing a child.
The interview is due to be broadcast on BBC Radio 4 on September 29.
natasha.donn@algarveresident.com
http://portugalresident.com/uk-media-accused-of-trailing-fake-mccann-stories-to-%E2%80%9Cpressure-the-european-court%E2%80%9D
-
Can posters please try to comply with the off topic rules otherwise posts will inevitably be removed. TY
NB If you wish to discuss a new topic please start one.
-
UK media accused of trailing fake McCann stories to “pressure the European Court”
By Natasha Donn
Algarve Resident
Published 29 Sept 2018
As a new funding deadline approaches for Operation Grange - the UK police inquiry that has spent over €12 million ‘searching for Madeleine McCann - British newspapers have been running with “fake stories” centring on the possibility that the Madeleine Fund is in danger of being wiped out by a new court action lodged by former PJ detective Gonçalo Amaral.
The Mail has inferred that a court case brought by Amaral is “due to start in the next few weeks” while the Sun describes the situation as a “Euro court showdown”.
The truth is that the case due to be heard has been instigated by the McCanns themselves and has nothing whatsoever to do with former PJ coordinator Gonçalo Amaral, who has been at pains to distance himself from media hype ever since the McCann’s long-running case to sue him for €1 million failed in the Supreme Court, Portugal’s final court of jurisdiction (click here).
Since that time, costs incurred by the McCanns (and awarded against them) have been left hanging.
The couple’s bid to overturn the Supreme Court judgement has failed twice (click here and click here), thus the jury is definitely out on the merits of this appeal to the European Court of Human Rights.
But as to the case being anything to do with Amaral, the former detective has been in touch to put the record straight:
“There are stories being printed saying I am taking the couple to court. It’s a lie. I have never received any kind of indemnity from them and I have never asked for one.
“The case they have lodged in the European court is not against me, but the Portuguese State.
“These lies just serve to make out that they are victims, to ask for more money and to pressure the European Court”.
The father-of-two who has long since maintained that the McCanns have set out to “assassinate” his “civil position”, said: “They should explain how much of the money of the Fund they have spent on court cases.
“For example, how much they have spent on lawyers fees. These were thousands of pounds not spent on looking for their daughter”.
Amaral’s treatment by the British press has been constant for the last decade.
This week the Sun has called him “disgraced” (when in fact he won the case taken out against him by the McCanns at least three times) and his theory that the parents could have covered up their daughter’s accidental death “shameful” and “ludicrous”.
As to the possibility that the Madeleine Fund could be “wiped out” if the European Court dismisses the McCann’s appeal, this is not news. The situation of the Fund was highlighted by all newspapers in March last year. In fact, Jerry Lawton of the Daily Star referred to the McCanns “going for broke” and using the Madeleine Fund to pay for their legal fees, even though this was something they had originally vowed they would never do (click here).
With the deadline for a decision on further funding for the Metropolitan Police search approaching, other UK newspapers have highlighted “an honest interview” with Madeleine’s father Gerry where he discusses his struggles with depression as a result of the stress of losing a child.
The interview is due to be broadcast on BBC Radio 4 on September 29.
natasha.donn@algarveresident.com
http://portugalresident.com/uk-media-accused-of-trailing-fake-mccann-stories-to-%E2%80%9Cpressure-the-european-court%E2%80%9D
It is interesting that some newspapers are pushing the idea that the McCanns will face Amaral at the ECHR. Perhaps it's just because they've made him the 'bogey man' for so long that they're staying with it. Or maybe they think that suing a 'disgraced poisonous liar' sounds better than suing a whole country.
-
It is interesting that some newspapers are pushing the idea that the McCanns will face Amaral at the ECHR. Perhaps it's just because they've made him the 'bogey man' for so long that they're staying with it. Or maybe they think that suing a 'disgraced poisonous liar' sounds better than suing a whole country.
Or it could be that they've been fed information from a 'source' and can't be arsed checking it out for themselves.
Ayone with an understanding of how the ECHR works would know that cases aren't taken out against individuals.
-
It is interesting that some newspapers are pushing the idea that the McCanns will face Amaral at the ECHR. Perhaps it's just because they've made him the 'bogey man' for so long that they're staying with it. Or maybe they think that suing a 'disgraced poisonous liar' sounds better than suing a whole country.
The case will be concerned with amarals claims... His book and documentary
-
Please note that the removed posts referring to the Liverpudlian dialect now have their own thread.
-
Or it could be that they've been fed information from a 'source' and can't be arsed checking it out for themselves.
Ayone with an understanding of how the ECHR works would know that cases aren't taken out against individuals.
Options:
The authors of the pieces are stupid.
The authors believe their readership is stupid.
Anyone who believes that this case, if admissible and if heard, will have far reaching consequences needs their bumps felt. It just is not that important on the world stage.
-
https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng#{%22languageisocode%22:[%22ENG%22],%22documentcollectionid2%22:[%22JUDGMENTS%22],%22itemid%22:[%22001-188987%22]}
Prunea v Romania 47881/11
The result of a case, in which the ECHR have ruled in favour of a defamed public person, announced this week.
-
https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng#{%22languageisocode%22:[%22ENG%22],%22documentcollectionid2%22:[%22JUDGMENTS%22],%22itemid%22:[%22001-188987%22]}
Prunea v Romania 47881/11
The result of a case, in which the ECHR have ruled in favour of a defamed public person, announced this week.
Having looked at many cases in my view, the, SC got it totally wrong..... A public person has just as much protection Re defamation as, anyone else.... However... A judge or politician... In their public duties... Can expect reasonable criticism
-
https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng#{%22languageisocode%22:[%22ENG%22],%22documentcollectionid2%22:[%22JUDGMENTS%22],%22itemid%22:[%22001-188987%22]}
Prunea v Romania 47881/11
The result of a case, in which the ECHR have ruled in favour of a defamed public person, announced this week.
Are you sure that's right?
The guy ,Prunea, wrote a piece in a paper about a politician, MI, who took him to court and won all the way.
ECHR ruled that Prunea was entitled to his view.
-
suing the network, the production company Critical Content, and several consultants for $750 million over a true-crime special asserting he caused his younger sister’s infamous death, JonBenét Ramsey’s brother Burke Ramsey has reportedly settled with CBS for an undisclosed amount of money. “I can only comment that the case has been amicably resolved to the satisfaction of all parties,” Ramsey’s lawyer Lin Wood said in a statement Friday. “It is now my professional and personal wish for this family that they no longer suffer the pain of false accusations in the future.” The settlement was also confirmed by a network spokesperson.
I'm surprised ni one has, raised this point
-
Are you sure that's right?
The guy ,Prunea, wrote a piece in a paper about a politician, MI, who took him to court and won all the way.
ECHR ruled that Prunea was entitled to his view.
ECHR ruled Romanian courts had not violated article 10 & Prunea had to pay damages.
-
suing the network, the production company Critical Content, and several consultants for $750 million over a true-crime special asserting he caused his younger sister’s infamous death, JonBenét Ramsey’s brother Burke Ramsey has reportedly settled with CBS for an undisclosed amount of money. “I can only comment that the case has been amicably resolved to the satisfaction of all parties,” Ramsey’s lawyer Lin Wood said in a statement Friday. “It is now my professional and personal wish for this family that they no longer suffer the pain of false accusations in the future.” The settlement was also confirmed by a network spokesperson.
I'm surprised ni one has, raised this point
That's probably because it doesn't involve ECHR laws IMO.
-
ECHR ruled Romanian courts had not violated article 10 & Prunea had to pay damages.
Prunea was the applicant to the ECHR court. Why should he pay damages?
In fact Prunea paid 5000 euro to the Romanian Court. This was deemed reasonable by the ECHR
-
Prunea was the applicant to the ECHR court. Why should he pay damages?
In fact Prunea paid 5000 euro to the Romanian Court. This was deemed reasonable by the ECHR
So the ECHR ruled that the journalist had no right to defame a public figure.. That sems to be the point
-
A judgement today at the ECHR regards Knox V Italy was first applied to the court in November 2013,any one who thinks any thing is going to happen in the McCann V Portugal any time soon is in for a long wait.
-
A judgement today at the ECHR regards Knox V Italy was first applied to the court in November 2013,any one who thinks any thing is going to happen in the McCann V Portugal any time soon is in for a long wait.
Yes, I saw that. 6 years...hmmm and do we think Portugual will comply even if it is found guilty of anything?
-
Yes, I saw that. 6 years...hmmm and do we think Portugual will comply even if it is found guilty of anything?
They might have to if they want EU Grants.
-
They might have to if they want EU Grants.
I think you'll find that the EU and the ECHR aren't connected.
-
I think you'll find that the EU and the ECHR aren't connected.
If The ECHR can't enforce it then they are a waste of time. Which I very much doubt.
-
I think you'll find that the EU and the ECHR aren't connected.
It's like Fantasy Island on here sometimes. @)(++(*
-
I think you'll find that the EU and the ECHR aren't connected.
Wow! who would have thunk the ECHR has no connection to the member states of the EU.
-
Wow! who would have thunk the ECHR has no connection to the member states of the EU.
Who would have thunk anyone said that.
-
Who would have thunk anyone said that.
Somedebody did.
-
Somedebody did.
Nope.
-
Nope.
Oh. Okay.
-
A judgement today at the ECHR regards Knox V Italy was first applied to the court in November 2013,any one who thinks any thing is going to happen in the McCann V Portugal any time soon is in for a long wait.
Something may happen relatively soon.... Not a judgement... But I would be interested in seeing the application
-
Something may happen relatively soon.... Not a judgement... But I would be interested in seeing the application
Me too. I could do with some light entertainment.
-
If The ECHR can't enforce it then they are a waste of time. Which I very much doubt.
They may be able to enforce their rulings, but not by withholding EU Grants imo.
-
One of the pair of convicted Scottish paedophiles (Charles O'Neill), reportedly questioned in connection with Madeleine's disappearance, also has a case lodged with the ECHR, the judgement of which is due to be announced next week. (Presumption of innocence during trial).
O’Neill v. the United Kingdom (no. 14541/15)
-
They may be able to enforce their rulings, but not by withholding EU Grants imo.
So how do they enforce it?
-
So how do they enforce it?
I've no idea, but I don't think EU Grants have anything to do with it. The EU and the ECHR belong to completely different legal systems.
-
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Court_of_Human_Rights#Procedure_and_decisions
Section 5 Procedure and decisions
The Court's judgments are public and must contain reasons justifying the decision. Article 46 of the Convention provides that contracting states undertake to abide by the Court's final decision. On the other hand, advisory opinions are, by definition, non-binding. The Court has to date decided consistently that under the Convention it has no jurisdiction to annul domestic laws or administrative practices which violate the Convention.
-
So how do they enforce it?
https://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/50Questions_ENG.pdf
See sections 40 to 42.
-
Me too. I could do with some light entertainment.
I wouldnt call it light entertainment in a case of possible abduction by a paedophile.... That's the difference between us... There is a case quoted above where from application to judgement is 3 yrs 4 months...
It's pretty sad that some find maddies disappearance light entertainment
-
I wouldnt call it light entertainment in a case of possible abduction by a paedophile.... That's the difference between us... There is a case quoted above where from application to judgement is 3 yrs 4 months...
It's pretty sad that some find maddies disappearance light entertainment
I don’t. The McCanns scrabbling for respectability is, however, another matter entirely IMO.
-
https://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/50Questions_ENG.pdf
See sections 40 to 42.
The Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe does it then.
-
I think it would be a total own goal if Portugal did not enforce any ECHR judgement... If it's established that amaral a nd the SC of Portugal rode roughshod over the mccanns human rights do posters, really think Portugal would want to make amends or just reinforce what a corupt system their excuse for a justice system is
-
I think it would be a total own goal if Portugal did not enforce any ECHR judgement... If it's established that amaral a nd the SC of Portugal rode roughshod over the mccanns human rights do posters, really think Portugal would want to make amends or just reinforce what a corupt system their excuse for a justice system is
I wonder if anyone will apologise for slagging off Amaral and the SC if the ECHR find they have done no wrong?
-
I wonder if anyone will apologise for slagging off Amaral and the SC if the ECHR find they have done no wrong?
Portuguese court decisions in the McCanns' favour suggest the justice system couldn't determine conclusively that Amaral did no wrong imo.
-
I wonder if anyone will apologise for slagging off Amaral and the SC if the ECHR find they have done no wrong?
I wonder if anyone... Including amaral and the SC of Portugal will apologise if the ECHR rule a violation of the mccanns human rights
-
Portuguese court decisions in the McCanns' favour suggest the justice system couldn't determine conclusively that Amaral did no wrong imo.
One first instance judge made a nistake which was corrected by the Appeal Court. The Supreme Court confirmed the decision of the Appeal Court was correct.
-
I wonder if anyone will apologise for slagging off Amaral and the SC if the ECHR find they have done no wrong?
Amaral is on record saying he could prove Maddie died in the apartment.. He can't... He us wrong.. His claims are a disgrace imo.
-
One first instance judge made a nistake which was corrected by the Appeal Court. The Supreme Court confirmed the decision of the Appeal Court was correct.
I think the ECHR will confirm their decision was incorrect
-
One first instance judge made a nistake which was corrected by the Appeal Court. The Supreme Court confirmed the decision of the Appeal Court was correct.
Did the Pt. court not also ban the book & documentary in 2010? (overturned on appeal)
-
Did the Pt. court not also ban the book & documentary in 2010? (overturned on appeal)
Yes, it was overturned on appeal, but in 2015 the first instance judge contradicted the Appeal Court and banned it again. What made her think it would be allowed to stand I can't imagine.
-
Yes, it was overturned on appeal, but in 2015 the first instance judge contradicted the Appeal Court and banned it again. What made her think it would be allowed to stand I can't imagine.
That seems odd.
-
That seems odd.
Perhaps no-one expected Amaral to appeal against her judgement. He wouldn't have been able to without the funds raised by PJGA and Leanne Baulch, of course.
-
I wonder if anyone... Including amaral and the SC of Portugal will apologise if the ECHR rule a violation of the mccanns human rights
Why should they - In my opinion the mcns will always be guilty of neglecting maddies human rights by way of absence of her parent's protection.
-
I wonder if anyone... Including amaral and the SC of Portugal will apologise if the ECHR rule a violation of the mccanns human rights
Post 2734 suggest's you don't know what they are attempting at the ECHR so what are you on about?
-
For those who are arguing that the ECHR will bring the McCanns justice, the court ruled that Thompson and Venables, the children who killed James Bulger received an unfair trial and they both received compensation as a result. Do you think justice was delivered in this instance ?
-
For those who are arguing that the ECHR will bring the McCanns justice, the court ruled that Thompson and Venables, the children who killed James Bulger received an unfair trial and they both received compensation as a result. Do you think justice was delivered in this instance ?
IMO justice was served as the 2 11yr old boys should not have been tried in an adult court, despite the abhorrent nature of their crimes. Current legislation reflects this for 10-17yr olds.
https://api.parliament.uk/historic-hansard/commons/1999/dec/16/echr-judgment-thompson-and-venables
*snipped*
On article 6(1), the right to a fair trial, the court found that, notwithstanding the special arrangements made to help ensure that the youths could properly participate in the trial process in the Crown Court,
it was highly unlikely that either applicant would have felt sufficiently uninhibited, in the tense court room and under public scrutiny, to have consulted with their legal representatives during the trial or, indeed, that, given their immaturity and disturbed emotional state, they would have been capable outside the court room of co-operating with their lawyers and giving them information for the purpose of their defence". It therefore followed, in the view of the court, that the applicants had been denied a fair hearing in breach of article 6(1).
On the setting of tariffs and their continued review, the court first held that there was a fundamental distinction between the sentence for murder in respect of juveniles and that for murder in respect of adults. As far as the latter—the sentence for adults—was concerned, the European Court, in an earlier judgment on the 1994 Wynne case, had accepted the lawfulness of the mandatory life sentence for adults convicted of murder. It had also accepted as lawful the arrangements for tariff-setting by the Secretary of State.
Today's judgment does not deal with the arrangements for adults who have been, or will be, convicted of murder in the courts in England and Wales. However, in this case, which involves juveniles, the European Court followed a decision by the House of Lords' Appellate Committee of the Privy Council that the setting of the tariffs for juveniles was itself a sentencing exercise. The court added that, as the Home Secretary—who set the applicants' tariffs—was clearly not independent of the Executive, there had been a breach of article 6(1) in respect of the determination of the applicants' tariffs.
On article 5(4), the court held that, because the applicants' tariffs had been decided by the Home Secretary, there had been no judicial supervision incorporated in the initial fixing of their sentences. The court therefore found a violation of article 5(4) based on the lack of any opportunity for the applicants to have the lawfulness of their detention assessed by a judicial body.
-
Portuguese court decisions in the McCanns' favour suggest the justice system couldn't determine conclusively that Amaral did no wrong imo.
A bit like the Attourney General couldn't determine conclusively that the McCanns did no wrong imo.
-
A bit like the Attourney General couldn't determine conclusively that the McCanns did no wrong imo.
Likewise with the other arguido.....hence at least 2 different crimes could have been possible.
-
IMO justice was served as the 2 11yr old boys should not have been tried in an adult court, despite the abhorrent nature of their crimes. Current legislation reflects this for 10-17yr olds.
https://api.parliament.uk/historic-hansard/commons/1999/dec/16/echr-judgment-thompson-and-venables
*snipped*
On article 6(1), the right to a fair trial, the court found that, notwithstanding the special arrangements made to help ensure that the youths could properly participate in the trial process in the Crown Court,
it was highly unlikely that either applicant would have felt sufficiently uninhibited, in the tense court room and under public scrutiny, to have consulted with their legal representatives during the trial or, indeed, that, given their immaturity and disturbed emotional state, they would have been capable outside the court room of co-operating with their lawyers and giving them information for the purpose of their defence". It therefore followed, in the view of the court, that the applicants had been denied a fair hearing in breach of article 6(1).
On the setting of tariffs and their continued review, the court first held that there was a fundamental distinction between the sentence for murder in respect of juveniles and that for murder in respect of adults. As far as the latter—the sentence for adults—was concerned, the European Court, in an earlier judgment on the 1994 Wynne case, had accepted the lawfulness of the mandatory life sentence for adults convicted of murder. It had also accepted as lawful the arrangements for tariff-setting by the Secretary of State.
Today's judgment does not deal with the arrangements for adults who have been, or will be, convicted of murder in the courts in England and Wales. However, in this case, which involves juveniles, the European Court followed a decision by the House of Lords' Appellate Committee of the Privy Council that the setting of the tariffs for juveniles was itself a sentencing exercise. The court added that, as the Home Secretary—who set the applicants' tariffs—was clearly not independent of the Executive, there had been a breach of article 6(1) in respect of the determination of the applicants' tariffs.
On article 5(4), the court held that, because the applicants' tariffs had been decided by the Home Secretary, there had been no judicial supervision incorporated in the initial fixing of their sentences. The court therefore found a violation of article 5(4) based on the lack of any opportunity for the applicants to have the lawfulness of their detention assessed by a judicial body.
You didn’t answer my question misty. Was the court’s ruling correct ?
-
You didn’t answer my question misty. Was the court’s ruling correct ?
I thought my first sentence answered your question, unless you are asking from a moral rather than a legal point of view?
-
For the doubters Mark S has posted a screenshot of the McCann's application to the ECHR
Awaiting first judicial decision
-
For the doubters Mark S has posted a screenshot of the McCann's application to the ECHR
Awaiting first judicial decision
Do you have a link please?
-
Do you have a link please?
I'm on my phone so will be later... It's on his, Twitter feed... It's from the official site but the number is obscured
https://mobile.twitter.com/saunokonoko/with_replies
Scroll down
-
I'm on my phone so will be later... It's on his, Twitter feed... It's from the official site but the number is obscured
https://mobile.twitter.com/saunokonoko/with_replies
Scroll down
Why is the number obscured?
-
Why is the number obscured?
I have no idea.. But it looks totally genuine... Data protection... GDPR... who knows
-
I have no idea.. But it looks totally genuine... Data protection... GDPR... who knows
Thank You for that.
-
I see from the twitter that -
'Application awaiting first judicial decision' + 'Application requiring a decision' in fact mean same thing. These are applications which have been allocated to a judicial formation of the Court but not yet disposed of or communicated to the Govt concerned (from ECHR press team)
This suggest that the application is still at an early stage if the 'defending' country haven't been informed.
Presumably they will be told only if the application proceeds to the next round.
-
Why is the number obscured?
Maybe the number only becomes public when a decision to progress the application is made.
-
Maybe the number only becomes public when a decision to progress the application is made.
All court processing documents have numbers which track the documents- therefore they are in the public domain already- No to reason to withhold the number. You may be correct Jassie. Portugual seems not to have responded, so very early stages indeed!
-
For the doubters Mark S has posted a screenshot of the McCann's application to the ECHR
Awaiting first judicial decision
Which is likely to be admissable or inadmissable.
-
Maybe the number only becomes public when a decision to progress the application is made.
Whoever found that page knew the application number.
-
Whoever found that page knew the application number.
But didn’t want to share.
-
But didn’t want to share.
it does put to bed the belief of some that no application had been made or it had already been declared inadmissable
-
it does put to bed the belief of some that no application had been made or it had already been declared inadmissable
Did people express a belief that no application had been made or did they point out (correctly) that there was no evidence that the application had been submitted? There is a clear difference between the two.
-
Did people express a belief that no application had been made or did they point out (correctly) that there was no evidence that the application had been submitted? There is a clear difference between the two.
There was evidence the application had been submitted, most sceptics preferred to dismiss it.
-
Did people express a belief that no application had been made or did they point out (correctly) that there was no evidence that the application had been submitted? There is a clear difference between the two.
I know there's, a difference.. But there was evidence the application had been submitted... They just refused to accept it...
-
There was evidence the application had been submitted, most sceptics preferred to dismiss it.
Snap
-
There was evidence the application had been submitted, most sceptics preferred to dismiss it.
So did anyone say they believed the application hadn't been submitted or was that simply your interpretation?
-
So did anyone say they believed the application hadn't been submitted or was that simply your interpretation?
Why us it so important... You know it was doubted... Damage limitation now?
There, was this from a skeptic..
Precisely.
It is all pie in the sky and par for the McCann'S trying yet again, delaying tactics.
And..
i think the mcanns are addicted to the attention they get everybody knows this wont happen and yet supporters lap it up all imo
-
So did anyone say they believed the application hadn't been submitted or was that simply your interpretation?
This is what YOU said previously..
The presumption of innocence applies to criminal, not civil proceedings. The judges pointed this out and referred to ECHR cases where the ECHR made the same point.
Looks Like you and the SC are quite wrong
-
This is what YOU said previously..
The presumption of innocence applies to criminal, not civil proceedings. The judges pointed this out and referred to ECHR cases where the ECHR made the same point.
Looks Like you and the SC are quite wrong
You have come to a conclusion without providing an argument.
-
This is what YOU said previously..
The presumption of innocence applies to criminal, not civil proceedings. The judges pointed this out and referred to ECHR cases where the ECHR made the same point.
Looks Like you and the SC are quite wrong
That isn't an answer to my question.
-
So did anyone say they believed the application hadn't been submitted or was that simply your interpretation?
Almost certainly they did, do you want me to read every single post on the subject to prove my point?
-
You have come to a conclusion without providing an argument.
I've provided a cite from the ECHR which proves what I have, said.. Read back... It's gunit who has made unsubstantiated claims.. More unfair harrassment rob... Lol
-
That isn't an answer to my question.
I've already answered both your questions..
-
Do you seriously imagine Brietta, that the McCann's can take their case, be accepted, and take the state of Portugal to court, after what they have done in and to Portugal ?
Here’s someone who seemed somewhat scepictal, does this count, or are the goalposts about to be shifted again?
-
The Supreme Court decision cannot be appealed. It stands.
Perhaps Clarence needs to understand that.
What about this one?
-
What about this one?
Theres lots more
-
What case?
It hasn't been accepted.
How about this one?
-
I think the ECHR will look at the careful consideration the Judgement took of European Human Rights legislation and chuck the request out.
What about this?
-
If you look at the link to lots if previous cases I supplied today... And read some last cases... The mccanns have an incredibly strong case imo... Against Portugal and the Sc judgement ...and thst judgement will call into question the claims made by amaral
-
I've provided a cite from the ECHR which proves what I have, said.. Read back... It's gunit who has made unsubstantiated claims.. More unfair harrassment rob... Lol
That comment by myself wasn't harassment D. You may have covered it before but it wasn't presented as a complete package.
-
That comment by myself wasn't harassment D. You may have covered it before but it wasn't presented as a complete package.
I'm not entirely sure what that means Rob. You appear to be implying that we have to precis previous posts with each new post we make??
I'm not entirely sure that is workeable or even if it leads to free flowing dialogue ... and is it applicable only to Davel or do we all have to play?
-
I can't see anything within the auspices of the ECHR that could apply to the McCann case. The very detailed decision by the Portuguese Appeal Court later upheld by the Portuguese Supreme Court left little leeway for any further appeal IMO. The McCanns attitude towards the Portuguese police sealed that deal in my opinion.
Wrong.
-
What about this one?
It's true that there is no Appeal against thr SC judgement. That's nothing to do with the ECHR,
-
How about this one?
Has the case been accepted?
-
That comment by myself wasn't harassment D. You may have covered it before but it wasn't presented as a complete package.
Gunit has claimed that the presumption of innocence is not applicable to a civil case... But has provided no evidence to support this... I say it is, applicable and yesterday supplied the following post to support it... It contains a link and a cite..
Could you explain why it's not the complete package.. In your opinion
-
Quote from: G-Unit on April 27, 2019, 09:46:14 AM
It's a legal right which protects those charged with a criminal offence. Defamation is a civil offence
You have incorrectly claimed several times that the presumption of innocence does not apply to a civil trial...read below which is an ECHR ruling and you will see you are wrong..
Ruokanen and Others v. Finland
6 April 2010
The applicants were an editor-in-chief and a journalist and a publishing company. They
complained about their conviction of defamation following publication of an article stating
that a student had been raped in September 2000 by members of a baseball team at a
party to celebrate their victory in the Finnish championship. The applicants had been
ordered to pay over 80,000 euros in damages to compensate each member of the
baseball team.
The Court held that there had been no violation of Article 10 (freedom of expression)
of the Convention, finding that the domestic courts had struck a fair balance between the
competing interests involved, i.e. the applicants’ right to freedom of expression and the
10
Factsheet – Protection of reputation
right to reputation of the alleged perpetrators of a crime. It observed in particular that
imperatives other than matters of public concern had to be weighed up before an
incident was reported by the media to the public as fact. The right to presumption of
innocence and reputation of third parties was of equal importance especially where
serious accusations of sexual misconduct were concerned
if teh SC have denied the mccanns the presumption of innnocence tehn clearly they are in error...so we have absolute confirmation taht the presumption off innocence should be taken into account in a civil defamation case
www.echr.coe.int/Documents/FS_Reputation_ENG.pdf. page 11
ReplyQuoteNotify
-
Has the case been accepted?
It certainly has not been rejected and is still active.. Approaching two years now... If you look at the link I posted yesterday there are lots of cases Re defamation decided by the ECHR... based on those I think the mccanns have an incredibly strong case... Defamation..... And the right to the presumption of innocence...
In the appeal against the SC verdict the mccanns specifically raised their right to the presumption if innocence... The SC rejected the argument
-
It certainly has not been rejected and is still active.. Approaching two years now... If you look at the link I posted yesterday there are lots of cases Re defamation decided by the ECHR... based on those I think the mccanns have an incredibly strong case... Defamation..... And the right to the presumption of innocence...
In the appeal against the SC verdict the mccanns specifically raised their right to the presumption if innocence... The SC rejected the argument
Have you actually seen the document the McCanns/lawyers have written,and what they are actually going to the ECHR with? or is it pure speculation on your part.
-
Have you actually seen the document the McCanns/lawyers have written,and what they are actually going to the ECHR with? or is it pure speculation on your part.
It's not pure speculation by any means.. If you understand the process the mccanns are limited to what they can claim.. By deduction... I can see it's basically defamation abd the presumption of innocence... These are rights guaranteed by the ECHR and the points raised at the SC hearing... The mccanns specifically raised the POI at the SC appeal... It's obvious why
-
It's true that there is no Appeal against thr SC judgement. That's nothing to do with the ECHR,
The SC judgement is precisely what the ECHR will look at... They can't overturn it... But they can declare that it breached the mccanns Human Rights and that the book did too... Could that result in the book being banned and prevent amaral making any further comments?... I think it could
-
The SC judgement is precisely what the ECHR will look at... They can't overturn it... But they can declare that it breached the mccanns Human Rights and that the book did too... Could that result in the book being banned and prevent amaral making any further comments?... I think it could
That will do what exactly in the supposed ongoing search into what happened to Madeline McCann?
-
That will do what exactly in the supposed ongoing search into what happened to Madeline McCann?
Goalpost shifting.
-
That will do what exactly in the supposed ongoing search into what happened to Madeline McCann?
The thread is about theECHR... not the search... Why do feel the need to deflect...
-
If someone is charged with a criminal offense they are entitled to be presumed innocent until the prosecution has proved them guilty beyond reasonable doubt. This legal protection isn't needed in civil cases because no-one is charged with a criminal offense.
Sometimes defamation consists of stating as a fact that someone is guilty of a crime. Not only does this damage their reputation, it can breach the person's right to the presumption of innocence because only a court can declare someone is guilty and it must be as the result of a fair trial.
The Supreme Court judges didn't say the McCanns were guilty of a crime, so they didn't damage the McCann's right to be presumed innocent.
-
The thread is about theECHR... not the search... Why do feel the need to deflect...
Run out of argument I expect.
-
If someone is charged with a criminal offense they are entitled to be presumed innocent until the prosecution has proved them guilty beyond reasonable doubt. This legal protection isn't needed in civil cases because no-one is charged with a criminal offense.
Sometimes defamation consists of stating as a fact that someone is guilty of a crime. Not only does this damage their reputation, it can breach the person's right to the presumption of innocence because only a court can declare someone is guilty and it must be as the result of a fair trial.
The Supreme Court judges didn't say the McCanns were guilty of a crime, so they didn't damage the McCann's right to be presumed innocent.
The SC said they cannot be considered cleared which implies doubtfulness regarding their innocence IMO.
-
If someone is charged with a criminal offense they are entitled to be presumed innocent until the prosecution has proved them guilty beyond reasonable doubt. This legal protection isn't needed in civil cases because no-one is charged with a criminal offense.
Sometimes defamation consists of stating as a fact that someone is guilty of a crime. Not only does this damage their reputation, it can breach the person's right to the presumption of innocence because only a court can declare someone is guilty and it must be as the result of a fair trial.
The Supreme Court judges didn't say the McCanns were guilty of a crime, so they didn't damage the McCann's right to be presumed innocent.
The presumption of innocence applies to those suspected of a crime not just those charged ...amaral implied the mccanns were guilty if a crime... He claimed he could prove Maddie died in the apartment and the death was covered up... The SC supported his right to say that... Defamation.. Denial of the right to presumption of inocence... It couldn't be any clearer
-
The SC said they cannot be considered cleared which implies doubtfulness regarding their innocence IMO.
Precisely... Why should the SC comment in this when the mccanns have the right to POI... they don't need to be cleared of anything..
-
The SC said they cannot be considered cleared which implies doubtfulness regarding their innocence IMO.
The SC said that in reply to the McCann's lawyer who claimed that they had been cleared. She was wrong.
-
The SC said that in reply to the McCann's lawyer who claimed that they had been cleared. She was wrong.
The SC had no right to question the mccanns innocence... Which they did
-
Run out of argument I expect.
There is no argument Mark Saunokonoko of 9News who in another thread was accused of producing absolute rubbish brought up a copied page from the ECHR with a redacted case number telling us absolutley nothing,all of a sudden the the one who accused him of producing rubbish is adamant of what he produced now is spot on,go figure.
-
The thread is about theECHR... not the search... Why do feel the need to deflect...
It was a genuine question which you can't answer.
-
It was a genuine question which you can't answer.
LOL, you wanna bet? It seems you want to provoke Davel to take this thread off topic again, any reason for that?
-
The SC had no right to question the mccanns innocence... Which they did
They questioned the McCanns lawyers interpretation.
-
It was a genuine question which you can't answer.
Stating your opinion as fact... Where's rob... I certainly could answer the question but choose not to derail the thread
-
The SC said that in reply to the McCann's lawyer who claimed that they had been cleared. She was wrong.
OK, perhaps you can answer this. In Portugal is it lawful to write a book claiming unlawful activities by another so long as that person has not been tried in a court of law and found not guilty? For example, could Kate McCann write a book claiming Amaral was covering up for a paedophile ring operating on the Algarve, but because he has never been charged with this crime, he has never been cleared of it and therefore “fair comment”?
-
Stating your opinion as fact... Where's rob... I certainly could answer the question but choose not to derail the thread
Running to a mod is beneath you imo.
-
Running to a mod is beneath you imo.
I'm not running to any mod as, I doubt rob would take any action
-
Hypothetical I know,but will and can the ECHR rule when there is still supposed to be a open and ongoing investigation.Is there a wider picture to be seen.
-
Running to a mod is beneath you imo.
I must remember that line next time snowflakes on here start whingeing at my fat fingered spelling mistakes.... @)(++(*
-
@davel,you say you have studied many a case at the ECHR,did any of them involve a still ongoing criminal investigation?
-
@davel,you say you have studied many a case at the ECHR,did any of them involve a still ongoing criminal investigation?
The case has zilch to do with the ongoing criminal investigation.
-
The presumption of innocence applies to those suspected of a crime not just those charged ...amaral implied the mccanns were guilty if a crime... He claimed he could prove Maddie died in the apartment and the death was covered up... The SC supported his right to say that... Defamation.. Denial of the right to presumption of inocence... It couldn't be any clearer
The SC judges don't retry cases, they hear appeals. In this case the McCanns were appealing against the decision of the Appeal Court. The purpose of the evidence presented by their lawyer was to persuade the SC judges that the Appeal Court judges were wrong. It was that evidence that the SC judges examined and rejected.
-
Quite right, it's against the state of Portugal, or at least it will be if it gets to that stage in the proceedings.
-
@davel,you say you have studied many a case at the ECHR,did any of them involve a still ongoing criminal investigation?
The case has zilch to do with the ongoing criminal investigation.
Are you and davel one and the same,before you jump in with anyone can answer,the question is specific to Davel because he is the one who says he's studied some cases.
-
The SC judges don't retry cases, they hear appeals. In this case the McCanns were appealing against the decision of the Appeal Court. The purpose of the evidence presented by their lawyer was to persuade the SC judges that the Appeal Court judges were wrong. It was that evidence that the SC judges examined and rejected.
You need to look at sone of the cases I have provided the link to..
Defamation... Was the SC correct to give more wieght to amarals right under article 10 than the mccanns rights under 8... To reach that decision the, ECHR Wil look at the validity if the claims made by amaral.....
The SC reached their judgement... The ECHR will look at the judgement abd decide if they think amaral had the right to make those claims... Looking at previous judgements... I don't think he has
-
OK, perhaps you can answer this. In Portugal is it lawful to write a book claiming unlawful activities by another so long as that person has not been tried in a court of law and found not guilty? For example, could Kate McCann write a book claiming Amaral was covering up for a paedophile ring operating on the Algarve, but because he has never been charged with this crime, he has never been cleared of it and therefore “fair comment”?
Did the McCann's lawyer make that point? If she didn't the courts wouldn't address it. They only consider the evidence which is presented.
-
@davel,you say you have studied many a case at the ECHR,did any of them involve a still ongoing criminal investigation?
What relavence diesvthe ongoing case have do you think
-
Did the McCann's lawyer make that point? If she didn't the courts wouldn't address it. They only consider the evidence which is presented.
And that's why the mccanns lawyers raised the presumption of innocence in the appeal to the SC
-
What relavence diesvthe ongoing case have do you think
That wasn't the question posed,did any of the cases involved have as a concern an ongoing criminal investigation.
-
You need to look at sone of the cases I have provided the link to..
Defamation... Was the SC correct to give more wieght to amarals right under article 10 than the mccanns rights under 8... To reach that decision the, ECHR Wil look at the validity if the claims made by amaral.....
The SC reached their judgement... The ECHR will look at the judgement abd decide if they think amaral had the right to make those claims... Looking at previous judgements... I don't think he has
You seem to think the SC tried the case. They didn't. They upheld the Appeal Court decision by rejecting Duarte's arguments against it.
-
Did the McCann's lawyer make that point? If she didn't the courts wouldn't address it. They only consider the evidence which is presented.
It’s a bloody good point though isn’t it. I feel a career in law beckoning...
-
That wasn't the question posed,did any of the cases involved have as a concern an ongoing criminal investigation.
The answers no.. So my question to you is, what relevance do you think that has
-
You seem to think the SC tried the case. They didn't. They upheld the Appeal Court decision by rejecting Duarte's arguments against it.
The SC made a ruling... Read the court report... They balanced the rights of amaral and the rights if the mccanns... And came down in support if amaral... It's all there in the judgement... The balance between articles 10 and 8. .exactly what the ECHR deal with
-
The answers no.. So my question to you is, what relevance do you think that has
So there is unlikely to be a precedent set then to study.
-
So there is unlikely to be a precedent set then to study.
So you think it's relevant.... Again why should it be... You can't seem to answer the question... I don't see, any relevance and you can't provide any... It's like saying have any involved the abductuin if blonde girls.... The precedents have been set fir the balance if 8 vs 10... And they are quite clear
-
So there is unlikely to be a precedent set then to study.
Which part of “the on-going investigation has nothing to do with the judgement” do you not understand?
-
The SC made a ruling... Read the court report... They balanced the rights of amaral and the rights if the mccanns... And came down in support if amaral... It's all there in the judgement... The balance between articles 10 and 8. .exactly what the ECHR deal with
Which page is that on?
-
Which page is that on?
It's in several pages... Have you really... Really.. Really.. read the judgement and not seen it...
how can you make any valued judgement on the validity of the mccanns case when you do not seem to have read the SC judgement
-
So you think it's relevant.... Again why should it be... You can't seem to answer the question... I don't see, any relevance and you can't provide any... It's like saying have any involved the abductuin if blonde girls.... The precedents have been set fir the balance if 8 vs 10... And they are quite clear
I think there is every chance it could have a bearing,when and if the ECHR get around to it,they'll want all paper work from the very start,not cherry pick bits you would want them to.One of the central claims is that the book Amaral wrote harmed the search, did it? theres still a live criminal investigation some insist!
-
Which part of “the on-going investigation has nothing to do with the judgement” do you not understand?
Its like noahs ark,two by two.
-
Its like noahs ark,two by two.
Are you a Young Earther? That wouldn’t surprise me.
-
I think there is every chance it could have a bearing,when and if the ECHR get around to it,they'll want all paper work from the very start,not cherry pick bits you would want them to.One of the central claims is that the book Amaral wrote harmed the search, did it? theres still a live criminal investigation some insist!
you have shown you dont understand...the harm to the search will not feature...that is not a human right
-
I think there is every chance it could have a bearing,when and if the ECHR get around to it,they'll want all paper work from the very start,not cherry pick bits you would want them to.One of the central claims is that the book Amaral wrote harmed the search, did it? theres still a live criminal investigation some insist!
G-Unit, please put your fellow whatever-you-want-to-call-it straight on this matter, ta.
-
you have shown you dont understand...the harm to the search will not feature...that is not a human right
I would imagine even the McCanns would argue against that.
-
I would imagine even the McCanns would argue against that.
as I said you need to look at what the ECHR can actually deal with...its quite limited...thats why its relatively easy to deduce what the mccanns claim will be
-
It's in several pages... Have you really... Really.. Really.. read the judgement and not seen it...
how can you make any valued judgement on the validity of the mccanns case when you do not seem to have read the SC judgement
Of course I've read it, but the onus is on the one making a claim to provide a cite.
-
Of course I've read it, but the onus is on the one making a claim to provide a cite.
if you are asking for a cite you obviosly havent understood it..imo..my highlight added in red
What is at stake, fundamentally, is to identify the legal good that will be, concretely, prevailing, taking into account that, in each conflict resolution, the balance pans, to begin with, are in a position of equilibrium, since freedom of expression(article 10) and honour (article 8)must start from a position of equality.
For this purpose, it is necessary to introduce the respective evaluation criteria in the pan of freedom of expression or in the pan of honour.
And it is playing with weights and counterweights that, in the end, it will appear which of the pans weighs more.
Well, in the present case, as it results from the foregoing, the pan that weighs more and is the freedom of expression one.
Which amounts to saying that this is the legal good that, in this case, prevails.
Page 75
Thus we shall have to conclude that, in the present case, prevail the rights of the respondents to freedom of expression and information and to freedom of the press and of the media
The balance between 8 and 10 is precisely what teh ECHR can deal with...and from the cases ive provide a link to it seems to me teh SC got it wrong
-
as I said you need to look at what the ECHR can actually deal with...its quite limited...thats why its relatively easy to deduce what the mccanns claim will be
At last we're getting there,the ECHR will only rule on the SC judgement,not anything previous,it'll not effect Amaral either way.
-
At last we're getting there,the ECHR will only rule on the SC judgement,not anything previous,it'll not effect Amaral either way.
At last YOU'RE getting there you mean, everyone else arrived there a while back... @)(++(*
-
At last we're getting there,the ECHR will only rule on the SC judgement,not anything previous,it'll not effect Amaral either way.
you might at last be getting there now...ive undestood for a long time
it could well result in his book being banned...it may well prevent him making any more statemnts re his theory
-
you might at last be getting there now...ive undestood for a long time
it could well result in his book being banned...it may well prevent him making any more statemnts re his theory
Why? The right to free speech is written into the Portuguese constitution.
Is Europe a bit more fascist?
-
you might at last be getting there now...ive undestood for a long time
it could well result in his book being banned...it may well prevent him making any more statemnts re his theory
The case is not against Amaral you've confirmed this,its against the Portuguese SC and its ruling.
-
Why? The right to free speech is written into the Portuguese constitution.
Is Europe a bit more fascist?
Am I free to claim you are a paedophile in Portugal, who chats up little boys in playgrounds? A simple yes or no answer will suffice.
-
Am I free to claim you are a paedophile in Portugal, who chats up little boys in playgrounds? A simple yes or no answer will suffice.
I remember you did indeed try to label me as a potential paedophile, for being civil to a little child who initiated a conversation with me in Luz.
You lost out the first time round. Bringing it up again is my definition of dumb. Obviously, IMO.
Move on. Nothing to see here.
-
I remember you did indeed try to label me as a potential paedophile, for being civil to a little child who initiated a conversation with me in Luz.
You lost out the first time round. Bringing it up again is my definition of dumb. Obviously, IMO.
Move on. Nothing to see here.
According to you the Portuguese constitution supports the right if VS to say that
-
I remember you did indeed try to label me as a potential paedophile, for being civil to a little child who initiated a conversation with me in Luz.
You lost out the first time round. Bringing it up again is my definition of dumb. Obviously, IMO.
Move on. Nothing to see here.
I am asking you if freedom of speech in Portugal extends to the right to make such claims, clearly you have no answer. For the record, I have no idea if you have paedophile tendencies, but as you've not been cleared of having them afaik, well... who knows?
-
Why? The right to free speech is written into the Portuguese constitution.
Is Europe a bit more fascist?
You will find Portugal also has defamation laws.... Amaral tried to sue Correia for defamation.... And lost..... So much for amarals support of free speech
-
According to you the Portuguese constitution supports the right if VS to say that
Nope. It doesn't. And that's not what I said. Other than that .......
-
The case is not against Amaral you've confirmed this,its against the Portuguese SC and its ruling.
I confirmed that when the application was first issued... But it concerns the claims made by amaral ans as I understand a positive result for the mccanns will affect amaral
-
Nope. It doesn't. And that's not what I said. Other than that .......
"The right to free speech is written into the Portuguese constitution.
Is Europe a bit more fascist?"
So how far does the right to free speech extend in Portugal? Is there anything I can't say or write? If so does that make Portugal a little bit fascist too?
-
I confirmed that when the application was first issued... But it concerns the claims made by amaral ans as I understand a positive result for the mccanns will affect amaral
How? the ECHR is unequivocal,: Note, however, that under no circumstances will the Court set aside a national court’s decision.
If it concerns Amaral then it concerns the investigation,the initial claim was the book harmed the search.
-
How? the ECHR is unequivocal,: Note, however, that under no circumstances will the Court set aside a national court’s decision.
If it concerns Amaral then it concerns the investigation,the initial claim was the book harmed the search.
It can't overturn the original decision and it can only be concerned with the book and the TV programmes effect on the mccanns human rights....defamation... Nothing to do with the search
-
Whoever found that page knew the application number.
Interestingly the claimant isn't allowed to contact the echr,so why should a journalist which MS is trying to tell us happened?
Throughout the proceedings, even if they seem to be taking a long time, you must wait for the Court to contact you.
-
Interestingly the claimant isn't allowed to contact the echr,so why should a journalist which MS is trying to tell us happened?
Throughout the proceedings, even if they seem to be taking a long time, you must wait for the Court to contact you.
I understand it was a press release... Maybe as a result of a request
-
I understand it was a press release... Maybe as a result of a request
Is/was that used to circumvent the ban on appellants contacting the echr,bit of a loop hole if that is the case.
-
Is/was that used to circumvent the ban on appellants contacting the echr,bit of a loop hole if that is the case.
In your opinion... Where's rob today
-
Just reread the SC judgement awful lot of references to the ECHR to cover themselves imo.
eg:Faced with a settled case-law by the ECHR, as it happens in cases such as the present one, the Portuguese courts cannot but be influenced by the European paradigm of human rights.
-
Just reread the SC judgement awful lot of references to the ECHR to cover themselves imo.
eg:Faced with a settled case-law by the ECHR, as it happens in cases such as the present one, the Portuguese courts cannot but be influenced by the European paradigm of human rights.
They've got it, wrong IMO... And it won't be the first time
-
"The right to free speech is written into the Portuguese constitution.
Is Europe a bit more fascist?"
So how far does the right to free speech extend in Portugal? Is there anything I can't say or write? If so does that make Portugal a little bit fascist too?
I don't think you understand free speech v fascism.
Equally, I don't think you understand a polite conversation initiated by a small child v paedophilia.
Do you want a third example? Or are you willing to stop digging such a deep, dark hole?
-
I don't think you understand free speech v fascism.
Equally, I don't think you understand a polite conversation initiated by a small child v paedophilia.
Do you want a third example? Or are you willing to stop digging such a deep, dark hole?
i dont think you understand what is meant by free speech
-
it does put to bed the belief of some that no application had been made or it had already been declared inadmissable
Without a reference number it doesn’t.
-
Without a reference number it doesn’t.
that really is laughble imo....but it doesnt matter...
-
that really is laughble imo....but it doesnt matter...
You produce a snapshot, with the reference number anyone could check, without then the current status is unknown.
-
You produce a snapshot, with the reference number anyone could check, without then the current status is unknown.
so are you accusing mark S of lying......I havent produced anything...its on the channel nine site
-
so are you accusing mark S of lying......I havent produced anything...its on the channel nine site
So why is Mark Saunokonoko being so reticent about revealing the reference number I wonder?
-
Does he even know it? The screen-shot shown might have had the number obscured before he got hold of it.
-
Does he even know it? The screen-shot shown might have had the number obscured before he got hold of it.
You mean he posted a redacted document without knowing it? Not terribly perceptive for a journalist that.
-
You mean he posted a redacted document without knowing it? Not terribly perceptive for a journalist that.
I never suggested he didn't know it was redacted, I suggested he may not know what the redacted number was.
Not the same thing at all.
-
I don't think you understand free speech v fascism.
Equally, I don't think you understand a polite conversation initiated by a small child v paedophilia.
Do you want a third example? Or are you willing to stop digging such a deep, dark hole?
Enlighten me then by giving a simple straightforward answer to my question. I bet you can’t!
-
I never suggested he didn't know it was redacted, I suggested he may not know what the redacted number was.
Not the same thing at all.
The ECHR will not accept claimants contacting them,so why should it be acceptable for a journalist to do so,doesn't add up.
-
Ah, so Mark Saunoffshotgun cannot be trusted now, excellent news, we are now free to rubbish his entire output!
-
The ECHR will not accept claimants contacting them,so why should it be acceptable for a journalist to do so,doesn't add up.
Yet it was Saunokonoko who posted it? ... wonder what his game was?
-
Enlighten me then by giving a simple straightforward answer to my question. I bet you can’t!
Which question are you talking about?
With you and Davel clocking up posts faster than KFC can do bargain buckets, it is indeed difficult to know what you are rattling on about.
-
Ah, so Mark Saunoffshotgun cannot be trusted now, excellent news, we are now free to rubbish his entire output!
Why do you think he can't be trusted? I've not seen any one else say so.
-
Which question are you talking about?
With you and Davel clocking up posts faster than KFC can do bargain buckets, it is indeed difficult to know what you are rattling on about.
If you can’t keep up with the pace, you could always visit the “me and my pets” section of the forum.
-
If you can’t keep up with the pace, you could always visit the “me and my pets” section of the forum.
If you feel the need to crank out 3,500 posts in your 3rd incarnation, so be it.
If Davel feels the need to crank out over 30,000 posts &%%6
Try putting something more meaningful in. You just might might gain a little more gravitas.
-
If you feel the need to crank out 3,500 posts in your 3rd incarnation, so be it.
If Davel feels the need to crank out over 30,000 posts &%%6
Try putting something more meaningful in. You just might might gain a little more gravitas.
Thank you for your permission to crank out thousands of posts, it’s much appreciated. I don’t do gravitas as a rule, that’s for those who are filled with a sense of their own self-importance. I am simply here to expose that, as well as the complete absence of logic and the disingenuousness that is present in so many of then”sceptic” posts I see, yours included.
-
"The right to free speech is written into the Portuguese constitution.
Is Europe a bit more fascist?"
So how far does the right to free speech extend in Portugal? Is there anything I can't say or write? If so does that make Portugal a little bit fascist too?
Bumping for SIL.
-
Why do you think he can't be trusted? I've not seen any one else say so.
Well is the document pertaining to the ECHR application real or not? I see some doubt being cast upon it here by those of a sceptical nature, because of the lack of a number thereon.
-
Bumping for SIL.
Why? *%87
-
Why? *%87
Because you wanted to know what the question was as I’d made so many posts you couldn’t follow the thread, so that’s why. Please feel free to answer the question in your own time.
-
Because you wanted to know what the question was as I’d made so many posts you couldn’t follow the thread, so that’s why. Please feel free to answer the question in your own time.
Which question?
You've been back on the highly offensive paedophilia angle again today.
So this time try KISS.
You might just make more progress.
-
Gunit has claimed that the presumption of innocence is not applicable to a civil case... But has provided no evidence to support this... I say it is, applicable and yesterday supplied the following post to support it... It contains a link and a cite..
Could you explain why it's not the complete package.. In your opinion
Brietta understood what I meant by "complete package". Maybe it would be for my benefit too, so I could understand in one compact thought process your train of thought. You might be supplying all the components but not as a package.
-
Brietta understood what I meant by "complete package". Maybe it would be for my benefit too, so I could understand in one compact thought process your train of thought. You might be supplying all the components but not as a package.
I think Brietta felt you were harrassing me, and edited your post... Your only post today is to criticise me. .if you can't understand the simple point I was making that's your problem not mine... IMO your post makes no sense, at all
-
I'm not entirely sure what that means Rob. You appear to be implying that we have to precis previous posts with each new post we make??
I'm not entirely sure that is workeable or even if it leads to free flowing dialogue ... and is it applicable only to Davel or do we all have to play?
Briettas post... You understand her statement...where she says.. I'm not entirely sure what that means...... To mean she understands what you are saying... That's bizarre
-
I'm not running to any mod as, I doubt rob would take any action
I've been asleep, and there are pages and pages to read through. It seems too late to take any action now.
-
I've been asleep, and there are pages and pages to read through. It seems too late to take any action now.
I don't expect you to take any action because for the past few days the only posts you have criticised are mine.. Everyone else has continually stated their opinion as fact... I don't really care
-
if you are asking for a cite you obviosly havent understood it..imo..my highlight added in red
What is at stake, fundamentally, is to identify the legal good that will be, concretely, prevailing, taking into account that, in each conflict resolution, the balance pans, to begin with, are in a position of equilibrium, since freedom of expression(article 10) and honour (article 8)must start from a position of equality.
For this purpose, it is necessary to introduce the respective evaluation criteria in the pan of freedom of expression or in the pan of honour.
And it is playing with weights and counterweights that, in the end, it will appear which of the pans weighs more.
Well, in the present case, as it results from the foregoing, the pan that weighs more and is the freedom of expression one.
Which amounts to saying that this is the legal good that, in this case, prevails.
Page 75
Thus we shall have to conclude that, in the present case, prevail the rights of the respondents to freedom of expression and information and to freedom of the press and of the media
The balance between 8 and 10 is precisely what teh ECHR can deal with...and from the cases ive provide a link to it seems to me teh SC got it wrong
Was the SC right on this point: "Well, in the present case, as it results from the foregoing, the pan that weighs more and is the freedom of expression one"? Who is doing the weighing?
-
Was the SC right on this point: "Well, in the present case, as it results from the foregoing, the pan that weighs more and is the freedom of expression one"? Who is doing the weighing?
The SC are doing the weighing... Obviously.. Are they right... Read the cases from the link to previous ECHR cases... From these it appears the SC are, wrong
-
The SC are doing the weighing... Obviously.. Are they right... Read the cases from the link to previous ECHR cases... From these it appears the SC are, wrong
s
The weights assigned to each scale are based on the judge's considered opinions. They aren't actual weights that can be rechecked by the average person.
-
s
The weights assigned to each scale are based on the judge's considered opinions. They aren't actual weights that can be rechecked by the average person.
I think most if us already understand that... It's called metaphorically speaking... Isn't that obvious
-
I don't expect you to take any action because for the past few days the only posts you have criticised are mine.. Everyone else has continually stated their opinion as fact... I don't really care
Yes to our benefit.
-
Yes to our benefit.
You are not making any sense imo
-
I think most if us already understand that... It's called metaphorically speaking... Isn't that obvious
It maybe metaphorically speaking but then they turn that metaphor around and make it a fact. You would like more weight to be placed on the side of right to a good name. How do they apply the right amounts of weight to both sides of the scale when the two sides are different.
What they are saying it is more important to have free speech rather than the damage that that free speech causes.
I personally feel that if the claims made by GA affect the search for Madeleine those claims are excessively damaging and the scales should swing the other way.
-
Which question?
You've been back on the highly offensive paedophilia angle again today.
So this time try KISS.
You might just make more progress.
this question
“So how far does the right to free speech extend in Portugal? Is there anything I can't say or write? If so does that make Portugal a little bit fascist too?”
How many more times are you going to ask me “which question”?
-
You are not making any sense imo
Our = the forum's benefit.
-
It maybe metaphorically speaking but then they turn that metaphor around and make it a fact. You would like more weight to be placed on the side of right to a good name. How do they apply right amounts of weight to both sides of the scale when the two sides are different.
What they are saying it is more important to have free speech rather than the damage than that free speech causes.
I personally feel that if the claims made by GA affect the search for Madeleine those claims are excessively damaging and the scales should swing the other way.
The SC judgement is an opinion.. Nothing more...it's now up to the ECHR to give their interpretation of the law.. They can't rule on the damage to the search
-
Yes to our benefit.
In what way to the forums benefit... Do you feel harrassing me benefits the forum
-
The SC judgement is an opinion.. Nothing more...it's now up to the ECHR to give their interpretation of the law.. They can't rule on the damage to the search
Well how do they do that then? What points did the SC miss that they didn't place enough weight on the side of the right to a good name?
-
Well how do they do that then? What points did the SC miss that they didn't place enough weight on the side of the right to a good name?
Read some of the cases I have linked to and you will understand ...why should I waste my time explaining things to you
-
Well how do they do that then? What points did the SC miss that they didn't place enough weight on the side of the right to a good name?
I'm tending to think Madeleine is the main person being denied the right to a good name. Is she dead or alive?
GA claims she is dead when she maybe alive. Is that denying someone's right to a good name?
-
I'm tending to think Madeleine is the main person being denied the right to a good name. Is she dead or alive?
GA claims she is dead when she maybe alive. Is that denying someone's right to a good name?
Read the articles and you will understand.. After your harrassment of me I've no intention of explaining anything to you
-
Read some of the cases I have linked to and you will understand ...why should I waste my time explaining things to you
So do you know what makes the difference?
-
So do you know what makes the difference?
Yes...
-
In what way to the forums benefit... Do you feel harassing me benefits the forum
You feel harassed. I feel I'm trying to help you produce a better post, ones without ad hom arguments and opinion as fact. Progress has been made. In fact I'm starting to appreciate your posts now.
-
Yes...
Well can you use words to explain it then please?
-
this question
“So how far does the right to free speech extend in Portugal? Is there anything I can't say or write? If so does that make Portugal a little bit fascist too?”
How many more times are you going to ask me “which question”?
Despite the question marks, I believe that is purely a propaganda statement, so I saw no point in engaging. I still don't.
-
Despite the question marks, I believe that is purely a propaganda statement, so I saw no point in engaging. I still don't.
@)(++(* &%%6. I knew you’d be unable to answer so thanks for confirming it.
-
@)(++(* &%%6. I knew you’d be unable to answer so thanks for confirming it.
I'm confident you know basic English, such as the difference between a question and propaganda, and the difference between inability and choice.
Therein was the issue with your opener. If you don't ask a genuine question, why should you feel entitled to a response?
It makes no sense. *%87
-
Despite the question marks, I believe that is purely a propaganda statement, so I saw no point in engaging. I still don't.
From what I have read Portugal has, a poor record on free speech when it comes to criticising it's establishment... It can actually be, a criminal offence to criticise public figures such as judges etc... So your claim as it being s Haven fir free speech is totally misguided... All my opinion
-
I'm confident you know basic English, such as the difference between a question and propaganda, and the difference between inability and choice.
Therein was the issue with your opener. If you don't ask a genuine question, why should you feel entitled to a response?
It makes no sense. *%87
How can a question be propaganda? Your answer could be propaganda, I am simply asking what if any parameters there are on freedom of speech in Portugal. I would say your question “Is Europe a little bit more fascist” is rather more akin to propaganda than my question. I get that you don’t want to answer or can’t that’s fine, just leave it at that, it’s pointless your harping on to continue the argument.
-
How can a question be propaganda? Your answer could be propaganda, I am simply asking what if any parameters there are on freedom of speech in Portugal. I would say your question “Is Europe a little bit more fascist” is rather more akin to propaganda than my question. I get that you don’t want to answer or can’t that’s fine, just leave it at that, it’s pointless your harping on to continue the argument.
If you check back through the thread, you'll find I was quite willing to ignore your first comment. The one 'harping on' was your good self.
I am delighted to learn you are willing to stop. &^^&*
-
If you check back through the thread, you'll find I was quite willing to ignore your first comment. The one 'harping on' was your good self.
I am delighted to learn you are willing to stop. &^^&*
Doesn't really matter as your premise that Portugal supports free, speech is false
-
Doesn't really matter as your premise that Portugal supports free, speech is false
Exactly. Yet in the McCann case they appear to have set a precedent that it’s OK to write a libellous book about someone so long as they were never charged, tried and cleared of the crime of which they are being accused in the book. What a bonkers country!
-
Exactly. Yet in the McCann case they appear to have set a precedent that it’s OK to write a libellous book about someone so long as they were never charged, tried and cleared of the crime of which they are being accused in the book. What a bonkers country!
Yet defamation is a criminal offence in Portugal... If you criticise a judge you could go to jail
-
Exactly. Yet in the McCann case they appear to have set a precedent that it’s OK to write a libellous book about someone so long as they were never charged, tried and cleared of the crime of which they are being accused in the book. What a bonkers country!
Different country, different laws. Happens all over the world.
-
Different country, different laws. Happens all over the world.
The country is governed by ECHR Law
-
Exactly. Yet in the McCann case they appear to have set a precedent that it’s OK to write a libellous book about someone so long as they were never charged, tried and cleared of the crime of which they are being accused in the book. What a bonkers country!
Libellous in your opinion but not in the opinion of the Portuguese courts.
-
The country is governed by ECHR Law
Given the ECHR cannot turn over any judgement how does that work?
-
Libellous in your opinion but not in the opinion of the Portuguese courts.
Cite for not libellous... I haven't seen that stated anywhere
-
Cite for not libellous... I haven't seen that stated anywhere
Is that why the argument fell down then becasue they didn't sue for libel?
-
Given the ECHR cannot turn over any judgement how does that work?
so the mcanns attempting to get the ECHR to change any ruling is a waste of time and money??
-
so the mcanns attempting to get the ECHR to change any ruling is a waste of time and money??
Do you believe they knew it was a waste of time and money before embarking on this step and if so why would they still pursue this action?
-
Do you believe they knew it was a waste of time and money before embarking on this step and if so why would they still pursue this action?
Maybe because they're gambling with someone else's money.
-
Maybe because they're gambling with someone else's money.
They could have kept that money and spent it elsewhere?
Something that would not mean they would lose that money.
Some sceptics believe they are living a millionaire lifestyle with someone else's money.
Why waste any on a pointless task?
They could have used it to even more enhance their millionaire lifestyle!
-
Given the ECHR cannot turn over any judgement how does that work?
As I understand the ECHR can order that amarals book is libellous... It could then be banned... That's how it works
-
Is that why the argument fell down then becasue they didn't sue for libel?
Read the SC judgement... It talks of almost nothing but libel
-
Cite for not libellous... I haven't seen that stated anywhere
Did the Portuguese Courts find against Amaral? The first instance judge did, but only by saying his freedom of expression was restricted. That suggests that she wouldn't have reached that conclusion had he not been a retired policeman.
-
Did the Portuguese Courts find against Amaral? The first instance judge did, but only by saying his freedom of expression was restricted. That suggests that she wouldn't have reached that conclusion had he not been a retired policeman.
The court found in favour of amarals freedom of speech even though it damaged the mccanns reputation... Have you read the judgement... So they have not said amarals claims were not libellous
-
Did the Portuguese Courts find against Amaral? The first instance judge did, but only by saying his freedom of expression was restricted. That suggests that she wouldn't have reached that conclusion had he not been a retired policeman.
Cite fior not libellous... The court never made any such statement
-
The court found in favour of amarals freedom of speech even though it damaged the mccanns reputation... Have you read the judgement... So they have not said amarals claims were not libellous
Where was it acknowleged that Amaral damaged the McCann's reputation?
-
Where was it acknowleged that Amaral damaged the McCann's reputation?
have you read the SC judgement
-
Libellous in your opinion but not in the opinion of the Portuguese courts.
cite for not in the courts opinion...third time of asking
-
Where was it acknowleged that Amaral damaged the McCann's reputation?
you may have raed it but did you understand it...
For this purpose, it is necessary to introduce the respective evaluation criteria in the pan of freedom of expression or in the pan of honour.
And it is playing with weights and counterweights that, in the end, it will appear which of the pans weighs more.
If there was no damage to reputation that pan would be empty...it wasnt...so there was damage to reputation....simple logic...
thats my cite...wheres yours
-
Where was it acknowleged that Amaral damaged the McCann's reputation?
The McCanns won the first case.
-
cite for not in the courts opinion...third time of asking
The fact that the SC did not support the McCanns appeal implies it wasn't over all libellous as right to freedom of speech dominated. We might disagree with the balance of weighting but we'll have to wait for the ECHR judgement.
-
They could have kept that money and spent it elsewhere?
Something that would not mean they would lose that money.
Some sceptics believe they are living a millionaire lifestyle with someone else's money.
Why waste any on a pointless task?
They could have used it to even more enhance their millionaire lifestyle!
Not if they're using someone else's money; having said that, would it be the first time they'd misappropriated gifted funds?
-
The fact that the SC did not support the McCanns appeal implies it wasn't over all libellous as right to freedom of speech dominated. We might disagree with the balance of weighting but we'll have to wait for the ECHR judgement.
thats your opinion....not fact...the court did not state that amarals book was not libellous...they stated that there was damage to reputation...which is libel
your post only confirms gunit is stating opinion as fact and for some strange raeson you are supporting it
if we have a rule re opinion as fact...it needs to apply to everyone..dont you agree
-
Cite fior not libellous... The court never made any such statement
Finding against the McCanns equals rejecting their claim that Amaral libelled or defaned them.
-
Not if they're using someone else's money; having said that, would it be the first time they'd misappropriated gifted funds?
For the house extension?
-
Finding against the McCanns equals rejecting their claim that Amaral libelled or defaned them.
in your opinion....if you read the SC judgement you will see the court acceoted damage to reputation but felt amarals freedom of speech was more important...thats a fact supported by evidence. It seems even when presented with proof your bias makes you unwilling to acceot it
-
in your opinion....if you read the SC judgement you will see the court acceoted damage to reputation but felt amarals freedom of speech was more important...thats a fact supported by evidence. It seems even when presented with proof your bias makes you unwilling to acceot it
Of all those circumstances does not result, in our view, that underlying the book, the documentary and the interview, exists an defamatory intention against the appellants........ the existence of a mere attack ad hominem to the persons of the appellants is not to be prefigured.
-
in your opinion....if you read the SC judgement you will see the court acceoted damage to reputation but felt amarals freedom of speech was more important...thats a fact supported by evidence. It seems even when presented with proof your bias makes you unwilling to acceot it
Cripes! Do we have freedom of speech in Portugal? Just wondering as earlier today you were arguing that we don't.
There's flapping in the wind, and then there's flapping in the wind.
Which is it?
-
Cripes! Do we have freedom of speech in Portugal? Just wondering as earlier today you were arguing that we don't.
There's flapping in the wind, and then there's flapping in the wind.
Which is it?
oh dear...do you still not understand,,,...try this...the answers yes...and No...its not flapping...its understanding reality rather than being ignorant of reality
-
oh dear...do you still not understand,,,...try this...the answers yes...and No...its not flapping...its understanding reality rather than being ignorant of reality
Flap, flap, flap.
-
Flap, flap, flap.
Ignorant *3..I don't think you are capable of understanding the principles involved
-
thats your opinion....not fact...the court did not state that amarals book was not libellous...they stated that there was damage to reputation...which is libel
your post only confirms gunit is stating opinion as fact and for some strange raeson you are supporting it
if we have a rule re opinion as fact...it needs to apply to everyone..dont you agree
A court ruling can be reported as fact. A fact until it is overturned on appeal.
-
A court ruling can be reported as fact. A fact until it is overturned on appeal.
gunit is staing opinion as fact...but you are happy to ignore it
-
in your opinion....if you read the SC judgement you will see the court acceoted damage to reputation but felt amarals freedom of speech was more important...thats a fact supported by evidence. It seems even when presented with proof your bias makes you unwilling to acceot it
I agree with you but saying "your bias makes you unwilling to accept it" is bordering on ad hom.
-
Of all those circumstances does not result, in our view, that underlying the book, the documentary and the interview, exists an defamatory intention against the appellants........ the existence of a mere attack ad hominem to the persons of the appellants is not to be prefigured.
Which parts of that is a quote and what is commentary?
-
Ignorant *3..I don't think you are capable of understanding the principles involved
You think this or you don't think this?
-
I agree with you but saying "your bias makes you unwilling to accept it" is bordering on ad hom.
in you opinion...its been said to me lots...look like you are biased...but most can see that
-
gunit is staing opinion as fact...but you are happy to ignore it
What happens when the opinion is the same as the fact? Is it only opinion or a fact?
-
Of all those circumstances does not result, in our view, that underlying the book, the documentary and the interview, exists an defamatory intention against the appellants........ the existence of a mere attack ad hominem to the persons of the appellants is not to be prefigured.
you should have realised by now you need to provide alink...and page number
-
What happens when the opinion is the same as the fact? Is it only opinion or a fact?
if its a fact a link or cite needs to be provided...you should know teh rules by now
-
in you opinion...its been said to me lots...look like you are biased...but most can see that
In my judgement rather than opinion. I'm judging what is being said. You are paranoid about my bias toward you.
-
you should have realised by now you need to provide alink...and page number
That would be taking it to the extreme. Would you consistently comply to that level of compliance?
-
That would be taking it to the extreme. Would you consistently comply to that level of compliance?
I already have done on several occasions...gunit needs to show where this statement comes from..
gunit actually asked me for a page number and I complied..stop the harrassment
-
Which page is that on?
there you are rob..and I complied..only yesterday...im getting close to putting you on ignore again...you deserve it
-
I already have done on several occasions...gunit needs to show where this statement comes from..
gunit actually asked me for a page number and I complied..stop the harrassment
Keep up the good posting then. Stop picking on me.
-
Quote from: G-Unit on April 27, 2019, 09:46:14 AM
It's a legal right which protects those charged with a criminal offence. Defamation is a civil offence
You have incorrectly claimed several times that the presumption of innocence does not apply to a civil trial...read below which is an ECHR ruling and you will see you are wrong..
Ruokanen and Others v. Finland
6 April 2010
The applicants were an editor-in-chief and a journalist and a publishing company. They
complained about their conviction of defamation following publication of an article stating
that a student had been raped in September 2000 by members of a baseball team at a
party to celebrate their victory in the Finnish championship. The applicants had been
ordered to pay over 80,000 euros in damages to compensate each member of the
baseball team.
The Court held that there had been no violation of Article 10 (freedom of expression)
of the Convention, finding that the domestic courts had struck a fair balance between the
competing interests involved, i.e. the applicants’ right to freedom of expression and the
10
Factsheet – Protection of reputation
right to reputation of the alleged perpetrators of a crime. It observed in particular that
imperatives other than matters of public concern had to be weighed up before an
incident was reported by the media to the public as fact. The right to presumption of
innocence and reputation of third parties was of equal importance especially where
serious accusations of sexual misconduct were concerned
if teh SC have denied the mccanns the presumption of innnocence tehn clearly they are in error...so we have absolute confirmation taht the presumption off innocence should be taken into account in a civil defamation case
www.echr.coe.int/Documents/FS_Reputation_ENG.pdf. page 11
ReplyQuoteNotify
thers another
-
Libellous in your opinion but not in the opinion of the Portuguese courts.
I know, crazy isn’t it?!
-
you should have realised by now you need to provide alink...and page number
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/LEGAL_SUMMARY.htm
page 67
-
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/LEGAL_SUMMARY.htm
page 67
How do you know where page 67 starts?
-
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/LEGAL_SUMMARY.htm
page 67
I think your link is incorrect..its from pg 67 of the SC judgeemnt and teh full quote is this..
Of all those circumstances does not result, in our view, that underlying the book, the documentary and the interview, exists an defamatory intention against the appellants, i.e an animus injuriandi, but rather an animus informandi and an animus defendendi. Note*
so its saying in their view there is no malicious intent to defame,,,it is not saying it is not defamatory... So your claim that the court said defamation had not taken place is false
-
I think your link is incorrect..its from pg 67 of the SC judgeemnt and teh full quote is this..
Of all those circumstances does not result, in our view, that underlying the book, the documentary and the interview, exists an defamatory intention against the appellants, i.e an animus injuriandi, but rather an animus informandi and an animus defendendi. Note*
so its saying in their view there is no malicious intent to defame,,,it is not saying it is not defamatory... So your claim that the court said defamation had not taken place is false
Where is your evidence that they said it did?
-
Where is your evidence that they said it did?
I've already given it and provided cites
Remember balancing the oans of freedom of speech and honour.. The SC decided free speech eas more important than the McCann's right to a good name... Therefore admitting defamation
-
I've already given it and provided cites
Remember balancing the oans of freedom of speech and honour.. The SC decided free speech eas more important than the McCann's right to a good name... Therefore admitting defamation
Implying defamation rather than admitting to it IMO.
-
Implying defamation rather than admitting to it IMO.
As I see it the McCanns complained that Amaral's actions damaged their reputation. Everyone who sues for defanation believes that something someone else said damaged their reputation so how is it proved?
One way is to prove that a false statement has been made. The courts examined Amaral's book and found that it contained verifiable facts from the investigation, so no falsehoods there.
What he did was express his opinion about those facts, so was his opinion unlawful in some way? It wasn't, becauseit was the same opinion that the investigation had reached using the same facts.
The defence was left with trying to prove that he wasn't allowed to express his opinion. They offered arguments designed to demonstrate this;
His retired status.
The McCann's 'cleared' status.
The courts ultimately rejected their claims and found he was entitled to express his opinions.
-
As I see it the McCanns complained that Amaral's actions damaged their reputation. Everyone who sues for defanation believes that something someone else said damaged their reputation so how is it proved?
One way is to prove that a false statement has been made. The courts examined Amaral's book and found that it contained verifiable facts from the investigation, so no falsehoods there.
What he did was express his opinion about those facts, so was his opinion unlawful in some way? It wasn't, becauseit was the same opinion that the investigation had reached using the same facts.
The defence was left with trying to prove that he wasn't allowed to express his opinion. They offered arguments designed to demonstrate this;
His retired status.
The McCann's 'cleared' status.
The courts ultimately rejected their claims and found he was entitled to express his opinions.
Amaral claimed he could prove maddie died in the apartment... And the death was covered up... Nowhere in the police files, was that claim made.. The McCann's claimed they were entitled to the presumption of innocence... The SC said that didn't apply to a civil trial... I've provided a cite from the ECHR website that shows that is not true
The court said most of the facts in the book were in the files... That means some were not.
On that basis I see the McCann's have a very strong claim at the, ECHR... A very... Very strong claim
It's the balance between articles 10 and 8....there are lots if examples to form an opinion on in the link I have provided
-
Compensation for being shit parents? @)(++(*
Not many people go abroad with three children and come back with two due entirely to their own selfishness and lack of common sense where child security is concerned.
So is this abusive or fair comment
-
So is this abusive or fair comment
it must be close to the cut-off point.
-
So is this abusive or fair comment
If you think it's abusive, please explain why.
-
If you think it's abusive, please explain why.
Any challenges or opinions based on evidence at the McCanns is abuse according to supporters.
I find that really funny as in ha ha . getting all offended on behalf of others, whom you know nothing about is something else. and to get to the point of attack is even more funny haha.
Calling them bad parents is a fair comment from the person who percieves them to be bad parents.
-
Any challenges or opinions based on evidence at the McCanns is abuse according to supporters.
I find that really funny as in ha ha . getting all offended on behalf of others, whom you know nothing about is something else. and to get to the point of attack is even more funny haha.
Calling them bad parents is a fair comment from the person who percieves them to be bad parents.
Funny how you’re only offended by bad language when it suits you.
-
Funny how you’re only offended by bad language when it suits you.
Nothing said online offends me. Why should it ? I am just highlighting some wee bits n pieces here and there. Bad language does not offend me, I just like to remind supporters who sit on their high horses, they hve failings too, just like them nasgty trolls you all keep going on about-who do not reside here.
-
Nothing said online offends me. Why should it ? I am just highlighting some wee bits n pieces here and there. Bad language does not offend me, I just like to remind supporters who sit on their high horses, they hve failings too, just like them nasgty trolls you all keep going on about-who do not reside here.
Everyone has failings.
-
As I see it the McCanns complained that Amaral's actions damaged their reputation. Everyone who sues for defanation believes that something someone else said damaged their reputation so how is it proved?
One way is to prove that a false statement has been made. The courts examined Amaral's book and found that it contained verifiable facts from the investigation, so no falsehoods there.
What he did was express his opinion about those facts, so was his opinion unlawful in some way? It wasn't, becauseit was the same opinion that the investigation had reached using the same facts.
The defence was left with trying to prove that he wasn't allowed to express his opinion. They offered arguments designed to demonstrate this;
His retired status.
The McCann's 'cleared' status.
The courts ultimately rejected their claims and found he was entitled to express his opinions.
In orange bold type: Yes like it was not damaged by them hence why they got PR involved right away - damage limtitation. That was and always is their main worry- their reputation.IMO
I believe the window story was staged as it helped to salvage something of their reputation by making them victims. big drama of a story. about jemmied shutters- Maddie was snatched...Read all about it.
-
Nothing said online offends me. Why should it ? I am just highlighting some wee bits n pieces here and there. Bad language does not offend me, I just like to remind supporters who sit on their high horses, they hve failings too, just like them nasgty trolls you all keep going on about-who do not reside here.
We’re eternally grateful for your trouble, I’m sure.
-
Everyone has failings.
Indeed they do Erngath. Some just do not believe they have and try to act like they are of a higher plain. Not so.
-
Indeed they do Erngath. Some just do not believe they have and try to act like they are of a higher plain. Not so.
So you can accept that Madeleine's parents had failings too?
And perhaps understand?
-
So you can accept that Madeleine's parents had failings too?
And perhaps understand?
Erngath, it makes no difference to the parents if I understand them or not. What we have is a situation of a child who is missing, the parents give an account of what they say happened. I do not believe that account.
That does not make me a heartless soul.or a nasty troll.
Too much has been made of the parents in this forum but very little about Madeliene and what she may have or still is suffering-and that to me says it all.
The parents and their feelings and their reputations are very important to them- the impression I get from observing their behaviour is not that of innocent victims of an abducted child by a gang of paedophiles as was claimed. That does not make me a bad person either- I sleep kowing this.
-
Erngath, it makes no difference to the parents if I understand them or not. What we have is a situation of a child who is missing, the parents give an account of what they say happened. I do not believe that account.
That does not make me a heartless soul.or a nasty troll.
Too much has been made of the parents in this forum but very little about Madeliene and what she may have or still is suffering-and that to me says it all.
The parents and their feelings and their reputations are very important to them- the impression I get from observing their behaviour is not that of innocent victims of an abducted child by a gang of paedophiles as was claimed. That does not make me a bad person either- I sleep kowing this.
I sleep well too.
I consider all of Madeleine's family to be victims of an abduction.
You must have more experience than I do at observing the parents of a missing child.
I admit that I am not very familiar with how the victims of an abducted child should behave.
-
Erngath, it makes no difference to the parents if I understand them or not. What we have is a situation of a child who is missing, the parents give an account of what they say happened. I do not believe that account.
That does not make me a heartless soul.or a nasty troll.
Too much has been made of the parents in this forum but very little about Madeliene and what she may have or still is suffering-and that to me says it all.
The parents and their feelings and their reputations are very important to them- the impression I get from observing their behaviour is not that of innocent victims of an abducted child by a gang of paedophiles as was claimed. That does not make me a bad person either- I sleep kowing this.
You spend a lot of time on here protesting that you’re not a troll, why is that? It seems to bother you, though you also like to come across as supremely unbothered. Chillax, you know what they say about protesting too much...
-
I sleep well too.
I consider all of Madeleine's family to be victims of an abduction.
You must have more experience than I do at observing the parents of a missing child.
I admit that I am not very familiar with how the victims of an abducted child should behave.
I too consider the extended family to be affected by Madelienes disappearance.
Your concealment of not understanding the actions of the parents is astounding.
OK so you support the parents and feel sorry for them and give them badassoles (trolls)
a run for their money well good for you and the others on here.
I would invite you to be Madeliene for maybe just a few minutes, snatched from your bed, away from your family by paedophiles- we all know what they do but not in any detail. You are alone, afraid and being being tortured in ways you also are not familiar with. You get the chance to see your mum and dad On TV in interviews... at court blaming Amaral for all ills ... the police.... everyone. they go jogging and blogging touring...
Ok you can stop being MBM lets get back to how those poor parents must be feeling...with their new jobs,new cars, new life...holidays...
I am on Madelienes side I am a madeliene supporter she IS the only victim as her disappearance is the evidence- yes others were affected,but I never forget the real story.
-
I too consider the extended family to be affected by Madelienes disappearance.
Your concealment of not understanding the actions of the parents is astounding.
OK so you support the parents and feel sorry for them and give them badassoles (trolls)
a run for their money well good for you and the others on here.
I would invite you to be Madeliene for maybe just a few minutes, snatched from your bed, away from your family by paedophiles- we all know what they do but not in any detail. You are alone, afraid and being being tortured in ways you also are not familiar with. You get the chance to see your mum and dad On TV in interviews... at court blaming Amaral for all ills ... the police.... everyone. they go jogging and blogging touring...
Ok you can stop being MBM lets get back to how those poor parents must be feeling...with their new jobs,new cars, new life...holidays...
I am on Madelienes side I am a madeliene supporter she IS the only victim as her disappearance is the evidence- yes others were affected,but I never forget the real story.
Perhaps you might consider for one moment that Madeleine's parents also imagine what could be happening to Madeleine.
Yes you can imagine the horror of it but as you have admitted you do sleep well.
Perhaps the horror of what they imagine does not afford them such a contented night's sleep.
Your reference to new cars, new jobs, new life etc being in some way a compensation for the horror their child could be suffering does you little credit.
IMO
-
Any challenges or opinions based on evidence at the McCanns is abuse according to supporters.
I find that really funny as in ha ha . getting all offended on behalf of others, whom you know nothing about is something else. and to get to the point of attack is even more funny haha.
Calling them bad parents is a fair comment from the person who percieves them to be bad parents.
The concept of being 'offended' is essentially someone whining.
To go one mental leap further and take vicarious offence on behalf of a stranger is the reserve of the sanctimonious few.
-
The concept of being 'offended' is essentially someone whining.
To go one mental leap further and take vicarious offence on behalf of a stranger is the reserve of the sanctimonious few.
No it isn't... You can speak for yourself but not for others....
I dint like nastiness...and I react when I see it...I think that's quite a normal response.
-
The concept of being 'offended' is essentially someone whining.
To go one mental leap further and take vicarious offence on behalf of a stranger is the reserve of the sanctimonious few.
And we certainly have some of those on here - IMO
-
The concept of being 'offended' is essentially someone whining.
To go one mental leap further and take vicarious offence on behalf of a stranger is the reserve of the sanctimonious few.
Is that what happened when Brenda Leyland was unmasked by thr media? There was lots of outrage then, particularly about some of the vile things written about her. Was that just sanctimonious whining in your view?
-
And we certainly have some of those on here - IMO
We have people on here who whine on sanctimously about the McCanns childcare arrangements, and have been doing so for 12 years, do we not?
-
Is that what happened when Brenda Leyland was unmasked by thr media? There was lots of outrage then, particularly about some of the vile things written about her. Was that just sanctimonious whining in your view?
Only briefly saw that, but yes. It's people whining for someone else.
-
We have people on here who whine on sanctimously about the McCanns childcare arrangements, and have been doing so for 12 years, do we not?
Have we? Examples please.
-
No it isn't... You can speak for yourself but not for others....
I dint like nastiness...and I react when I see it...I think that's quite a normal response.
No it's not. There's empathy, that is contained and maybe processed in the brain as unfortunate for that person and you can relate, then there's misplaced, vicarious offence that's then acted upon.
-
Have we? Examples please.
Erm...are you claiming that no one on here has lambasted the McCanns “neglect” claiming that they would NEVER leave their young kids alone for a second?
-
No it's not. There's empathy, that is contained and maybe processed in the brain as unfortunate for that person and you can relate, then there's misplaced, vicarious offence that's then acted upon.
So people who intervene when others are being bullied are not normal in your view?
-
Erm...are you claiming that no one on here has lambasted the McCanns “neglect” claiming that they would NEVER leave their young kids alone for a second?
It's you making that claim, not me.
-
It's you making that claim, not me.
Check out the General’s posts. She’s made 4 sanctimonious references to the kids being left alone in her last 200 posts. I lost the will to check back any further but it shows up her hypocritical stance quite nicely.
Here’s one of the 4
“I imagine the same fascination as to why seemingly sane, responsible parents would habitually leave 3 wee ans alone in an unlocked holiday apartment, all for a jolly old time with friends and colleagues”.
She also found the “hilarious” post about the McCanns loving Tapas more than their children a work of unbridled genius. She clearly thinks she is morally superior to the McCanns.
-
So people who intervene when others are being bullied are not normal in your view?
Real or perceived? We can break moral outrage down if you like?
-
Check out the General’s posts. She’s made 4 sanctimonious references to the kids being left alone in her last 200 posts. I lost the will to check back any further but it shows up her hypocritical stance quite nicely.
Here’s one of the 4
“I imagine the same fascination as to why seemingly sane, responsible parents would habitually leave 3 wee ans alone in an unlocked holiday apartment, all for a jolly old time with friends and colleagues”.
She also found the “hilarious” post about the McCanns loving Tapas more than their children a work of unbridled genius. She clearly thinks she is morally superior to the McCanns.
I don't see any sanctimony there. It seems pretty factual.
-
I don't see any sanctimony there. It seems pretty factual.
I'm sure VS will dredge up some sanctimony from me soon. We all do it. It's displaced moral outrage manifested.
The whole concept has been studied for centuries, concerning how society pivots and steers itself morally through time - abolition of slavery, suffrage, worker's rights, little boys not being permitted to crawl up chimneys any more (alas).
Besides, my posts and opinions vary in proportion to the amount of alcohol consumed and are not to be trusted. But you know that already.
-
I'm sure VS will dredge up some sanctimony from me soon. We all do it. It's displaced moral outrage manifested.
The whole concept has been studied for centuries, concerning how society pivots and steers itself morally through time - abolition of slavery, suffrage, worker's rights, little boys not being permitted to crawl up chimneys any more (alas).
Besides, my posts and opinions vary in proportion to the amount of alcohol consumed and are not to be trusted. But you know that already.
At lest you acknowledge you're a hypocrite. I'm beginning to like you.
-
Real or perceived? We can break moral outrage down if you like?
Real or perceived does it make a difference? You see a man slapping a woman in the street. She is crying. Do you intervene or walk on by? In exactly such a circumstance my dad intervened and got a mouthful - from the woman. Was my dad not normal? Was he suffering an attack of moral outrage? Should he have ignored it? Probably. It was none of his business, was it?
-
At lest you acknowledge you're a hypocrite. I'm beginning to like you.
I'm no paragon of virtue. I'm a distillation and manifestation of my conditioning. I'm fallible, ignorant, hypocritical, egotistical, immoral, moral, gullible, vulnerable, ignominious, etc, ad nauseum.
....and I already liked you. Takes two to Tango and if there was no light-hearted, moderated jousting to be had here it would be a crappy old place.
-
I'm sure VS will dredge up some sanctimony from me soon. We all do it. It's displaced moral outrage manifested.
The whole concept has been studied for centuries, concerning how society pivots and steers itself morally through time - abolition of slavery, suffrage, worker's rights, little boys not being permitted to crawl up chimneys any more (alas).
Besides, my posts and opinions vary in proportion to the amount of alcohol consumed and are not to be trusted. But you know that already.
Internet plus alcohol - unwise combination 8)><(
-
Real or perceived does it make a difference? You see a man slapping a woman in the street. She is crying. Do you intervene or walk on by? In exactly such a circumstance my dad intervened and got a mouthful - from the woman. Was my dad not normal? Was he suffering an attack of moral outrage? Should he have ignored it? Probably. It was none of his business, was it?
It's a great example - and I've been there, albeit with a different result.
It's a real event, happening in real time. If it's experienced, it's visceral and very real - a 'moral outrage' has been witnessed first hand - psychologists argue that primal instinctive urges come to the fore. It's based on your world view, it's a reaction to the 'moral compass' being impinged upon right in front you.
When 'moral outrage' is perceived, you are considering how you feel out of context. The fight or flight mechanism is diluted, or not triggered, so it's a rational process, again based on your world view / conditioning. The same biological mechanisms are not in play.
feel sorry for your dad now - see, vicarious empathy........
-
It's a great example - and I've been there, albeit with a different result.
It's a real event, happening in real time. If it's experienced, it's visceral and very real - a 'moral outrage' has been witnessed first hand - psychologists argue that primal instinctive urges come to the fore. It's based on your world view, it's a reaction to the 'moral compass' being impinged upon right in front you.
When 'moral outrage' is perceived, you are considering how you feel out of context. The fight or flight mechanism is diluted, or not triggered, so it's a rational process, again based on your world view / conditioning. The same biological mechanisms are not in play.
feel sorry for your dad now - see, vicarious empathy........
Haha, it's always happening to my poor old Dad. Getting stuck in and getting no thanks for it. He's witnessed a chef go up in flames, been the only one in the restaurant to go to his aid, only for the chef to die a long a protracted agonising death afterwards. He's driven a hit and run victim to hospital who bled all over his car and wrongly accused him of running him over in the first place, he's chased off Chinese gangsters in the process of administering death by a thousand cuts to a victim only to have him die in his arms too. A super her my dad, albeit not a very effective one. Perhaps that's where I get it from.... @)(++(*
-
Haha, it's always happening to my poor old Dad. Getting stuck in and getting no thanks for it. He's witnessed a chef go up in flames, been the only one in the restaurant to go to his aid, only for the chef to die a long a protracted agonising death afterwards. He's driven a hit and run victim to hospital who bled all over his car and wrongly accused him of running him over in the first place, he's chased off Chinese gangsters in the process of administering death by a thousand cuts to a victim only to have him die in his arms too. A super her my dad, albeit not a very effective one. Perhaps that's where I get it from.... @)(++(*
Goes by the name of 'lucky'.
That man has had some serious experiences. Fair play to him.
-
This post is in reply to an off-topic post on another thread;
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=10882.msg553960#msg553960
In 2009 the Court adopted a new policy concerning the order in which it deals with cases.
Under this policy, the Court takes into consideration the importance and urgency of the issues raised
when deciding the order in which cases are to be dealt with. Thus, the most serious cases and those
which disclose the existence of widespread problems are singled out (categories I, II and III) and
examined as soon as practicable.
https://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/Stats_understanding_ENG.pdf
Despite the outrage some display about Portugal, it's by no means one of the most complained about. Unlike Italy and Poland it's not in the top ten.
https://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/Stats_pending_month_2019_BIL.pdf
-
The ECHR prioritises those cases brought under Articles 2-5, which cover 'core' rights. They deal with the right to life, the right not to be tortured, not to be enslaved and the right to liberty.
The McCann case is small fry when compared to these cases.
-
These 56.800 applications are the ones that have been approved to advance to the judicial stage.
Does that mean that there many thousands more still awaiting a decision regarding acceptance/rejection of the case ?
-
These 56.800 applications are the ones that have been approved to advance to the judicial stage.
Does that mean that there many thousands more still awaiting a decision regarding acceptance/rejection of the case ?
That could well be, because they're not recorded until they are allocated. I think the first step is to inform the state involved. The McCann application is described as 'awaiting first judicial decision' which means allocated to a judicial formation but not yet disposed of or communicated to the Government concerned.
-
One thing I've oft wondered on how many supposed violations can one go to the echr for or is it limited to one.
eg: suppose its article 8,that is being contested is it this they are limited to once an application is made?
-
One thing I've oft wondered on how many supposed violations can one go to the echr for or is it limited to one.
eg: suppose its article 8,that is being contested is it this they are limited to once an application is made?
Only violations which have already been raised in the national courts can be submitted, particularly those raised in the highest court.
https://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/Guide_ECHR_lawyers_ENG.pdf
So Duarte repeats to the Supreme Court her argument which the judge of the first instance accepted; that Amaral's freedom of expression was restricted by his membership of the PJ, albeit retired. Therefore, she says, he breached Article 6/2.
In support of her claim she quotes two cases. Karaman v Germany and Allen v UK.
-
Only violations which have already been raised in the national courts can be submitted, particularly those raised in the highest court.
https://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/Guide_ECHR_lawyers_ENG.pdf
So Duarte repeats to the Supreme Court her argument which the judge of the first instance accepted; that Amaral's freedom of expression was restricted by his membership of the PJ, albeit retired. Therefore, she says, he breached Article 6/2.
In support of her claim she quotes two cases. Karaman v Germany and Allen v UK.
The McCann's also raised the points of presumption of innocence and right to reputation
-
Only violations which have already been raised in the national courts can be submitted, particularly those raised in the highest court.
https://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/Guide_ECHR_lawyers_ENG.pdf
So Duarte repeats to the Supreme Court her argument which the judge of the first instance accepted; that Amaral's freedom of expression was restricted by his membership of the PJ, albeit retired. Therefore, she says, he breached Article 6/2.
In support of her claim she quotes two cases. Karaman v Germany and Allen v UK.
Just been reading the Karaman v G,came across this.
By virtue of that principle, no measures effectively amounting to a penalty may be taken against a defendant without his guilt having been established beforehand at a proper trial.The principle further requires that guilt be proved according to law before it can be held against the person concerned.
How were Amaral's assets frozen with out a trial with the presumption of innocence.
What penalty was taken against the McCanns.
-
Just been reading the Karaman v G,came across this.
By virtue of that principle, no measures effectively amounting to a penalty may be taken against a defendant without his guilt having been established beforehand at a proper trial.The principle further requires that guilt be proved according to law before it can be held against the person concerned.
How were Amaral's assets frozen with out a trial with the presumption of innocence.
What penalty was taken against the McCanns.
I don't know the law in Portugal, but it's usual in the UK to take out insurance when requesting that someone's assets be frozen. Just in case an innocent person is being deprived. In this case that happened and it may be that talk of 'compensation' having to be paid to Amaral could well be connected to this imo.
-
I don't know the law in Portugal, but it's usual in the UK to take out insurance when requesting that someone's assets be frozen. Just in case an innocent person is being deprived. In this case that happened and it may be that talk of 'compensation' having to be paid to Amaral could well be connected to this imo.
That would make sense,with no one fully explaining the compensation bit.
-
That would make sense,with on one fully explaining the compensation bit.
It makes sense to me. You surely can't freeze someone's assets for years without reason and not compensate them? Now that would be anti-justice.
-
Amaral owed a great deal of money to other people which he had made no effort to repay prior to the case with The McCanns.
The Portuguese Court froze Amaral's assets.
-
Amaral owed a great deal of money to other people which he had made no effort to repay prior to the case with The McCanns.
The Portuguese Court froze Amaral's assets.
The McCann's lawyer requested the injunction which froze Amaral's assets. Courts grant injunctions if they are requested. I can only comment as to the situation under UK law;
When, applying for a Freezing Order or Freezing Injunction, an Applicant is normally required to give what is called an “undertaking in damages” to compensate a Respondent if it is later shown that the Applicant was not entitled to the injunctive relief sought. The undertaking itself is given to the Court and not the Respondent. Even where there is no express undertaking, there is always an implied undertaking.
https://www.franciswilksandjones.co.uk/site/our_services/fraud-asset-recovery/freezing-order/further-information-freezing/applications-to-discharge-a-freezing-order-8-important-cons.html
-
The McCann's lawyer requested the injunction which froze Amaral's assets. Courts grant injunctions if they are requested. I can only comment as to the situation under UK law;
When, applying for a Freezing Order or Freezing Injunction, an Applicant is normally required to give what is called an “undertaking in damages” to compensate a Respondent if it is later shown that the Applicant was not entitled to the injunctive relief sought. The undertaking itself is given to the Court and not the Respondent. Even where there is no express undertaking, there is always an implied undertaking.
https://www.franciswilksandjones.co.uk/site/our_services/fraud-asset-recovery/freezing-order/further-information-freezing/applications-to-discharge-a-freezing-order-8-important-cons.html
Found this,whether it applies I know not.
https://e-justice.europa.eu/content_interim_and_precautionary_measures-78-gi-en.do?member=1
For interim injunctions the applicant is normally required to give a “cross-undertaking in damages” - a promise to compensate the respondent for any losses caused by the injunction if it subsequently turns out that it should not have been granted (e.g. because the applicant loses at trial).
-
It makes sense to me. You surely can't freeze someone's assets for years without reason and not compensate them? Now that would be anti-justice.
It is the court that orders the assets frozen, so who needs to take out the insurance?
-
It is the court that orders the assets frozen, so who needs to take out the insurance?
The person who requested the sequestration. The courts don't initiate these things, only grant them.
-
The person who requested the sequestration. The courts don't initiate these things, only grant them.
I understand that in the case of an injunction.
Wikipedia definition of injunction:
An injunction is a legal and equitable remedy in the form of a special court order that compels a party to do or refrain from specific acts. ... They can also be charged with contempt of court. Counterinjunctions are injunctions that stop or reverse the enforcement of another injunction."
Did the McCanns take out an injunction to stop Amaral selling his book?
-
I think their efforts were aimed at preventing anyone from publishing the book in the first place, which is probably why it was made available on line.
-
I understand that in the case of an injunction.
Wikipedia definition of injunction:
An injunction is a legal and equitable remedy in the form of a special court order that compels a party to do or refrain from specific acts. ... They can also be charged with contempt of court. Counterinjunctions are injunctions that stop or reverse the enforcement of another injunction."
Did the McCanns take out an injunction to stop Amaral selling his book?
They took two injunctions in 2009. One was to ban the book; that was dismissed on appeal. They also took out a freezing injunction to stop him spending his money because they wanted it to be there to pay them when they won their case. Rather amusingly, in 2010 Mitchell said;
"Kate and Gerry McCann are due to fly to Lisbon Monday afternoon and plan to attend the full hearing, which starts Tuesday and is expected to last three or four days. A verdict is likely soon after the conclusion, possibly by the end of next week, Mitchell said."
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:kGTerwYbAdUJ:www.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/europe/01/11/portugal.britain.madeleine.mccann/index.html+&cd=12&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=uk
Of course the judgement wasn't delivered until April 2015, and was finally settled by the SC in January 2017. So the asset freezing lasted a long long time; 8 years.
-
I suppose 8 years' interest on however much was frozen could be quite substantial.
I wonder if its been paid yet.
-
I suppose 8 years' interest on however much was frozen could be quite substantial.
I wonder if its been paid yet.
Well if they did the sensible thing they took out insurance. Or, given their confidence in winning, maybe they didn't.
-
They took two injunctions in 2009. One was to ban the book; that was dismissed on appeal. They also took out a freezing injunction to stop him spending his money because they wanted it to be there to pay them when they won their case. Rather amusingly, in 2010 Mitchell said;
"Kate and Gerry McCann are due to fly to Lisbon Monday afternoon and plan to attend the full hearing, which starts Tuesday and is expected to last three or four days. A verdict is likely soon after the conclusion, possibly by the end of next week, Mitchell said."
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:kGTerwYbAdUJ:www.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/europe/01/11/portugal.britain.madeleine.mccann/index.html+&cd=12&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=uk
Of course the judgement wasn't delivered until April 2015, and was finally settled by the SC in January 2017. So the asset freezing lasted a long long time; 8 years.
plus
I suppose 8 years' interest on however much was frozen could be quite substantial.
I wonder if its been paid yet.
Does it sound like they, the Portuguese, are playing the system again? To make sure that The Mccanns are bankrupted? To try and make sure that they do not take this case to the ECHR
Let's look back at all the messing about The Mccanns were put through in that Court case.
The one that stands out especially is where the Mccanns were given a special date and then it didn't happen. I seem to remember that this happened more than once. There were several instances of them being messed about
And of course it meant flying back and forth from England each time, altering dates with their legal team and arranging for suitable care for their children, more court suitable clean clothes, leave from jobs being re-arranged + other expences and inconveniences that the Portuguese participants didn't suffer. Also hotels etc.
I really wondered if it was all fixed up before hand tbh. IMO the messing about was scandalous.
What was the name of the judges etc? Anyone remember?
I really hope that the ECHR are informed about what happened.
-
I expect that Amaral's money was placed in an interest earning account. I very much doubt that someone's money can be sequestered otherwise.
-
plus
Does it sound like they, the Portuguese, are playing the system again? To make sure that The Mccanns are bankrupted? To try and make sure that they do not take this case to the ECHR
Let's look back at all the messing about The Mccanns were put through in that Court case.
The one that stands out especially is where the Mccanns were given a special date and then it didn't happen. I seem to remember that this happened more than once. There were several instances of them being messed about
And of course it meant flying back and forth from England each time, altering dates with their legal team and arranging for suitable care for their children, more court suitable clean clothes, leave from jobs being re-arranged + other expences and inconveniences that the Portuguese participants didn't suffer. Also hotels etc.
I really wondered if it was all fixed up before hand tbh. IMO the messing about was scandalous.
What was the name of the judges etc? Anyone remember?
I really hope that the ECHR are informed about what happened.
Look before you leap is good advice. If they weren't advised of the speed of Portuguese court proceedings they should take it up with their legal representatives. I very much doubt that the ECHR will be interested.
-
I expect that Amaral's money was placed in an interest earning account. I very much doubt that someone's money can be sequestered otherwise.
As I understand it, freezing involves stopping all activity, nothing moves.
-
As I understand it, freezing involves stopping all activity, nothing moves.
As you understand it. But then this what you would wish it to be.
But Amaral's money wasn't frozen. Merely sequestered.
-
As you understand it. But then this what you would wish it to be.
But Amaral's money wasn't frozen. Merely sequestered.
The difference being?
-
The difference being?
If you don't know the difference then you are more stupid than I ever thought you were.
-
If you don't know the difference then you are more stupid than I ever thought you were.
Is that an ad hom attack by a moderator? Well I never!
-
I seem to have lost the ability to communicate with those of you who have different opinions than mine. Presuming that any of you thought I ever did.
Only time will tell now.
Too many Threads about nothing much at all.
-
Sequestering;
Bank account impounded on court orders, denying the account holder any access to the account balance without the court's approval.
Read more: http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/sequestered-account.html
A freezing injunction is a court order which prevents a party from disposing of or dealing with its assets. A freezing injunction is therefore an essential tool for those looking to protect assets to ensure those assets are available to satisfy a court order.
They look very similar, but the injunction has a requester. I believe the McCann's lawyer did apply for a freezing injunction.
-
Is that an ad hom attack by a moderator? Well I never!
I thought it was a compliment. It depends on what you want to see.
-
I seem to have lost the ability to communicate with those of you who have different opinions than mine. Presuming that any of you thought I ever did.
Only time will tell now.
Too many Threads about nothing much at all.
I recieved your communication loud and clear, thank you. I'm not quite that stupid.
-
I recieved your communication loud and clear, thank you. I'm not quite that stupid.
I never thought that you were.
-
The McCann's also raised the points of presumption of innocence and right to reputation
What damage to their reputation? They left their children alone on a 'family holiday' every evening, while leaving them in creché etc during the day. One child was apparently abducted by a gang of paedophiles, whilst plying that story they went jogging,blogging and 'celebrity type photoshoots'. My god do you really believe that behaviour never affected their 'standing' within the community/ country? They were NOT supported by everyone they worked with you know!
-
It will be interesting to see how many Sceptics rush to the defence of the abductor when he is finally caught.
-
What damage to their reputation? They left their children alone on a 'family holiday' every evening, while leaving them in creché etc during the day. One child was apparently abducted by a gang of paedophiles, whilst plying that story they went jogging,blogging and 'celebrity type photoshoots'. My god do you really believe that behaviour never affected their 'standing' within the community/ country? They were NOT supported by everyone they worked with you know!
Damage to reputation as defined by law....not by posters on the net .
-
I'll be amazed if any do.
-
It will be interesting to see how many Sceptics rush to the defence of the abductor when he is finally caught.
you mean the 'loving family' who what stole her?
Some sceptics believe she was taken while walking to get her parents. However, if the 'abductor' is not related to the family, I doubt if any sceptic would defend them, why would they.
-
Damage to reputation as defined by law....not by posters on the net .
How is it defined by law?
-
How is it defined by law?
I'm sure you know. The Echr will look at the claims made by amaral... They are obviously damaging to the mccanns reputation... Or do you dispute that
-
Was is clear is that the McCanns can't apply to the ECHR on anything they want. They can only apply for breaches which have already been raised in the Portuguese Courts.
https://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/Q_A_Lawyers_Guide_ECHR_ENG.pdf
Page 4/1
-
I'm sure you know. The Echr will look at the claims made by amaral... They are obviously damaging to the mccanns reputation... Or do you dispute that
Which Article of the ECHR protects a person's reputation?
-
Which Article of the ECHR protects a person's reputation?
After all this time don't you know..article 8
-
Was is clear is that the McCanns can't apply to the ECHR on anything they want. They can only apply for breaches which have already been raised in the Portuguese Courts.
https://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/Q_A_Lawyers_Guide_ECHR_ENG.pdf
Page 4/1
Both reputation and presumption of innocence were discussed and discounted by the SC
-
After all this time don't you know..article 8
There are four express protected interests under Article 8:
(1) private life;
(2) home;
(3) family;
(4) correspondence.
https://ukhumanrightsblog.com/incorporated-rights/articles-index/article-8-of-the-echr/
-
There are four express protected interests under Article 8:
(1) private life;
(2) home;
(3) family;
(4) correspondence.
https://ukhumanrightsblog.com/incorporated-rights/articles-index/article-8-of-the-echr/
You really are showing your ignorance... We've been discussing this for two years
-
You really are showing your ignorance... We've been discussing this for two years
Please note that unless Article 8 was quoted during the trial it can't be included in their application to the ECHR.
-
Please note that unless Article 8 was quoted during the trial it can't be included in their application to the ECHR.
They dont have to quote the article in the case as long as it concerns a human right... The right to reputation was raised as was the presumption of innocence
-
As yet, there is nothing to indicate that the case will even be heard.
-
As yet, there is nothing to indicate that the case will even be heard.
I think there's lots to indicate the case will be heard... An application made and afaics a clear breach two articles
-
They dont have to quote the article in the case as long as it concerns a human right... The right to reputation was raised as was the presumption of innocence
Violations of Articles of the Convention must be pleaded substantively at first instance, with specific
reference to the applicable Convention Articles. It is essential to plead the same
Convention arguments on appeal, then to the highest national court, or any other
constitutional court or court of cassation which acts as a court of last resort
https://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/Q_A_Lawyers_Guide_ECHR_ENG.pdf
-
Violations of Articles of the Convention must be pleaded substantively at first instance, with specific
reference to the applicable Convention Articles. It is essential to plead the same
Convention arguments on appeal, then to the highest national court, or any other
constitutional court or court of cassation which acts as a court of last resort
https://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/Q_A_Lawyers_Guide_ECHR_ENG.pdf
I think you have completely misunderstood what that means...
This guide is directed at lawyers intending to bring a case before the European Court of
Human Rights (“the Court”).
ie...this is advise to lawyers once the decision has been taken to file a case at the ECHR
-
I think you have completely misunderstood what that means
The Articles to be used in an application to the ECHR must be brought to the attention of the national courts at every hearing. In this case that means in the court of the first instance, in the appeal court and in the supreme court.
-
The Articles to be used in an application to the ECHR must be brought to the attention of the national courts at every hearing. In this case that means in the court of the first instance, in the appeal court and in the supreme court.
as i have said i think you misunderstand...why should the articles be cited at every hearing when no decision hs been take to involve the ECHR....the guidance you have cited is for lawyers about to take a case to the ECHR..
you are woefully misguided imo
-
The Articles to be used in an application to the ECHR must be brought to the attention of the national courts at every hearing. In this case that means in the court of the first instance, in the appeal court and in the supreme court.
It is so easy to get confused when mains media use blinkered jargon and blatant hog wash to bamboozle the faithdul- not so much the-uninterested in justice for the McCanns - considering what the hell justice they are seeking?
Article 8 is not mentioned in the three court hearings. which it must be -to be considered. The SC ruled Amaral had no case to answer from the McCanns claims. ie they failed to produce any evidence which would lift the suspision/theory of the Pj at the time of MBM going 'missing'.
They failed to produce indepentant medical evidence of their claims about mental health of all 5 members of the family- even though one may be dead.
They failed to produce evidence that large scale of the global population stopped looking for their daughter as a result of Sr Amarals book. First having failed to produce evidence that the global population was in fact looking in the first place.
They also failed to produce evidence of their chosen theory to thwart the PJ's theory or to prove theirs wrong. In fact it was ruled they failed by not being compliant with a reconstruction. Which they claimed would not find MBM ,but then neither would spending search money on PR and lawyers , but hey...
So how was their good name affected? did they lose their jobs? become homeless?
Hell no! the exact opposite!
presumed innocent? they were while they were under investigation and arrested invited for questioning as suspects/arguidos. There is no evidence to the contrary.
Edited: to make the McCanns look innocent and imply they are being tortured by bloody foriegners. the fking w@kers and tweedle dee tweedle dumb being named here.
-
It is so easy to get confused when mains media use blinkered jargon and blatant hog wash to bamboozle the faithdul- not so much the-uninterested in justice for the McCanns - considering what the hell justice they are seeking?
Article 8 is not mentioned in the three court hearings. which it must be -to be considered. The SC ruled Amaral had no case to answer from the McCanns claims. ie they failed to produce any evidence which would lift the suspision/theory of the Pj at the time of MBM going 'missing'.
They failed to produce indepentant medical evidence of their claims about mental health of all 5 members of the family- even though one may be dead.
They failed to produce evidence that large scale of the global population stopped looking for their daughter as a result of Sr Amarals book. First having failed to produce evidence that the global population was in fact looking in the first place.
They also failed to produce evidence of their chosen theory to thwart the PJ's theory or to prove theirs wrong. In fact it was ruled they failed by not being compliant with a reconstruction. Which they claimed would not find MBM ,but then neither would spending search money on PR and lawyers , but hey...
So how was their good name affected? did they lose their jobs? become homeless?
Hell no! the exact opposite!
presumed innocent? they were while they were under investigation and arrested. There is no evidence to the contrary.
when were the mccanns arrested...that claim like the rest of your post is total.....
-
The McCanns have never been arrested or charged, unlike Amaral.
-
The McCanns have never been arrested or charged, unlike Amaral.
I'm nt seeing the relevance to the topic of the ECHR
-
It is so easy to get confused when mains media use blinkered jargon and blatant hog wash to bamboozle the faithdul- not so much the-uninterested in justice for the McCanns - considering what the hell justice they are seeking?
Article 8 is not mentioned in the three court hearings. which it must be -to be considered. The SC ruled Amaral had no case to answer from the McCanns claims. ie they failed to produce any evidence which would lift the suspision/theory of the Pj at the time of MBM going 'missing'.
They failed to produce indepentant medical evidence of their claims about mental health of all 5 members of the family- even though one may be dead.
They failed to produce evidence that large scale of the global population stopped looking for their daughter as a result of Sr Amarals book. First having failed to produce evidence that the global population was in fact looking in the first place.
They also failed to produce evidence of their chosen theory to thwart the PJ's theory or to prove theirs wrong. In fact it was ruled they failed by not being compliant with a reconstruction. Which they claimed would not find MBM ,but then neither would spending search money on PR and lawyers , but hey...
So how was their good name affected? did they lose their jobs? become homeless?
Hell no! the exact opposite!
presumed innocent? they were while they were under investigation and arrested. There is no evidence to the contrary.
I think their name was mud long before Amaral's book was published. As Kate McCann said, once they were made arguidos doors became closed to them. By the time the book appeared the UK press were reporting that they had been cleared, wasn't it? Is that why it upset them so much, by informing people why they were made arguidos? After all, they tried to sell it as a big mistake by incompetent foreigners.
-
I'm not seeing the relevance to the topic of the ECHR
Yep, its listed as McCann and Healy v Portugal.
-
Yep, its listed as McCann and Healy v Portugal.
I think Jassi was talking about the relevence of Amaral being arrested via Elenors post.?
Do we know he actual claim being made against Portugual?
-
I think Jassi was talking about the relevence of Amaral being arrested via Elenors post.?
Do we know he actual claim being made against Portugual?
I'm in agreement on that.
Bolded bit,not really many speculate though.
-
I think Jassi was talking about the relevence of Amaral being arrested via Elenors post.?
Do we know he actual claim being made against Portugual?
You stated that The McCanns had been arrested. At best you are mistaken, but then you often are.
-
I think their name was mud long before Amaral's book was published. As Kate McCann said, once they were made arguidos doors became closed to them. By the time the book appeared the UK press were reporting that they had been cleared, wasn't it? Is that why it upset them so much, by informing people why they were made arguidos? After all, they tried to sell it as a big mistake by incompetent foreigners.
I was aware of many not being taken in by them due to their demeanour pre and post their daughters disappearance.
It fell further according to the papers allowing readers to comment. And then having it published. They over played the 'victim card' IMO
-
I was aware of many not being taken in by them due to their demenure pre and post their daughters disappearance.
It fell further according to the papers allowing readers to comment. And then having it published. They over played the 'victim card' IMO
”Demenure”? What is that?
-
The Articles to be used in an application to the ECHR must be brought to the attention of the national courts at every hearing. In this case that means in the court of the first instance, in the appeal court and in the supreme court.
https://inforrm.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/mccanns-v-amaral-judgment.pdf
http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/STJ_Site.htm Click on link STJ - 1454 / 09.5TVLSB.L1.S1
The McCanns were, of course, successful in the first instance court.
-
As yet, there is nothing to indicate that the case will even be heard.
Boris will deal with it after Brexit.
-
Boris will deal with it after Brexit.
An interesting scenario arises post Brexit for UK citizens and access to the ECHR.
-
An interesting scenario arises post Brexit for UK citizens and access to the ECHR.
I don't see any reason why it should
-
I don't see any reason why it should
Are we bound by it forever? if indeed we do brexit.
-
Are we bound by it forever? if indeed we do brexit.
The case is against Portugal.. Not the UK
-
The case is against Portugal.. Not the UK
Really! but it involves uk citizens does it not,I'm not talking about the here and now what of in the future.
John made the point of after brexit,are we bound by it as a country and its citizens.
-
Really! but it involves uk citizens does it not,I'm not talking about the here and now what of in the future.
John made the point of after brexit,are we bound by it as a country and its citizens.
You do know that Russia is bound by the ECHR don’t you?
-
Really! but it involves uk citizens does it not,I'm not talking about the here and now what of in the future.
John made the point of after brexit,are we bound by it as a country and its citizens.
Yes we are.. The EU and the ECHR are seperate entities
-
Yes we are.. The EU and the ECHR are seperate entities
This is something that a lot of people don't understand.
-
https://www.equalityhumanrights.com/en/our-human-rights-work/what-does-brexit-mean-equality-and-human-rights-uk
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/theresa-may-human-rights-act-repeal-brexit-echr-commons-parliament-conservatives-a8734886.html
-
https://www.equalityhumanrights.com/en/our-human-rights-work/what-does-brexit-mean-equality-and-human-rights-uk
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/theresa-may-human-rights-act-repeal-brexit-echr-commons-parliament-conservatives-a8734886.html
From your link
The ECHR protects the human rights of people in countries that belong to the Council of Europe, which is a completely different organisation to the EU. The UK will still be signed up to the ECHR when it leaves the EU
-
https://inforrm.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/mccanns-v-amaral-judgment.pdf
http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/STJ_Site.htm Click on link STJ - 1454 / 09.5TVLSB.L1.S1
The McCanns were, of course, successful in the first instance court.
The judge said "The protection of the rights of the claimants to their good name and reputation (Article 8) is, in this case, closely related to the presumption of innocence.(Article 6)
"In this case, the claimants Kate and Gerald MacCann never ceased to benefit from this presumption of innocence (Article 6) and from the imperative of behaviour that this presumption places on national judicial and justice authorities and all the civil servants and agents (Article 10)."
She ruled that Amaral was not allowed to say he thought the McCanns were guilty because he was a retired member of the Policia Judiciaria (Article 10). Not only did this damage their reputation (Article 8), it also affected their right to be presumed innocent by the authorities (Article 6).
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=6307.0
So Amaral lost because he was a retired Inspector of the Policia Judiciaria. Had he not been, he wouldn't have lost.
The Appeal court judges completely rejected this; "no reserve duty can be imposed on the defendant about facts that have been disclosed and made public, particularly the whole investigation process. Once the duty of reserve is non-existent, freedom of expression of the defendant comes first and prevails over the rights asserted by the claimants, as the sentence has observed before introducing the unusual duty of reserve.
https://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/Decision_19_04_2016.htm
So the case appears to rest on whether Amaral's freedom of expression was restricted or not.
-
The judge said "The protection of the rights of the claimants to their good name and reputation (Article 8) is, in this case, closely related to the presumption of innocence.(Article 6)
"In this case, the claimants Kate and Gerald MacCann never ceased to benefit from this presumption of innocence (Article 6) and from the imperative of behaviour that this presumption places on national judicial and justice authorities and all the civil servants and agents (Article 10)."
She ruled that Amaral was not allowed to say he thought the McCanns were guilty because he was a retired member of the Policia Judiciaria (Article 10). Not only did this damage their reputation (Article 8), it also affected their right to be presumed innocent by the authorities (Article 6).
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=6307.0
So Amaral lost because he was a retired Inspector of the Policia Judiciaria. Had he not been, he wouldn't have lost.
The Appeal court judges completely rejected this; "no reserve duty can be imposed on the defendant about facts that have been disclosed and made public, particularly the whole investigation process. Once the duty of reserve is non-existent, freedom of expression of the defendant comes first and prevails over the rights asserted by the claimants, as the sentence has observed before introducing the unusual duty of reserve.
https://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/Decision_19_04_2016.htm
So the case appears to rest on whether Amaral's freedom of expression was restricted or not.
Imo it rests in whether amarals freedom of expression was restricted by the McCann's rights under article 8...and by the McCann's right to the presumption of innocence... Which comes under, article 6
-
From one of the links by misty.
The presumption of innocence, because it is only a presumption, cannot overlay the search for truth and the citizens' right to the truth.
-
You stated that The McCanns had been arrested. At best you are mistaken, but then you often are.
Is that a another personal snipe or are you going to provide stats?
From one of the links by misty.
The presumption of innocence, because it is only a presumption, cannot overlay the search for truth and the citizens' right to the truth.
This is the issue the McCanns have- they want to be declared innocent, but they can't because no crime has been established.
ALSO, the die hard supporters want them to be cleared of any wrong doing even though no one, apart from the people who know where MBM is and what happened to her is found. This flies in the face for highlighting justice for Madeliene. THE REAL VICTIM.
What injustice have the McCanns encountered?
-
Imo it rests in whether amarals freedom of expression was restricted by the McCann's rights under article 8...and by the McCann's right to the presumption of innocence... Which comes under, article 6
You are ignoring the fact that the first judge acknowledged that without the duty of reserve Amaral's freedom of expression was paramount. The Appeal Court judges pointed that out;
Once the duty of reserve is non-existent, freedom of expression of the defendant comes first and prevails over the rights asserted by the claimants, as the sentence has observed before introducing the unusual duty of reserve.
https://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/Decision_19_04_2016.htm
-
Is that a another personal snipe or are you going to provide stats?
This is the issue the McCanns have- they want to be declared innocent, but they can't because no crime has been established.
ALSO, the die hard supporters want them to be cleared of any wrong doing even though no one, apart from the people who know where MBM is and what happened to her is found. This flies in the face for highlighting justice for Madeliene. THE REAL VICTIM.
What injustice have the McCanns encountered?
I don't have to supply Stats for something that never happened.
The McCanns were never arrested.
-
I don't have to supply Stats for something that never happened.
The McCanns were never arrested.
The stats of you claiming I am often wrong. Its ok I know it was a snipe and you have no stats. Its all good!
-
You are ignoring the fact that the first judge acknowledged that without the duty of reserve Amaral's freedom of expression was paramount. The Appeal Court judges pointed that out;
Once the duty of reserve is non-existent, freedom of expression of the defendant comes first and prevails over the rights asserted by the claimants, as the sentence has observed before introducing the unusual duty of reserve.
https://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/Decision_19_04_2016.htm
In your opinion... I'm not ignoring anything imo
Imo the ECHR case rests on the points, I have raised... And which were repeatedly raised in the, SC judgement
-
From one of the links by misty.
The presumption of innocence, because it is only a presumption, cannot overlay the search for truth and the citizens' right to the truth.
It does protect from libel from what I have read... With one case coming from the ECHR past cases
-
It does protect from libel from what I have read... With one case coming from the ECHR past cases
And where is the libel in this scenario?
PJ are entitled to report their findings of an investigation- Amaral wrote about about those findings and the theory which was the main discussion of the day.
-
And where is the libel in this scenario?
PJ are entitled to report their findings of an investigation- Amaral wrote about about those findings and the theory which was the main discussion of the day.
Amaral said he could prove Maddie died in the apartment and her death was covered up..
-
The stats of you claiming I am often wrong. Its ok I know it was a snipe and you have no stats. Its all good!
You are wrong. So expect someone to point this out.
-
Amaral said he could prove Maddie died in the apartment and her death was covered up..
I never read the book. Did he actually claim the parents killed their daughter and hid her body? could you provide an actual cite.
I thought it was a theory that an accident of some sort had occured.
I was of the impression they believed the window scenario was 'staged' I believe that has been proved by experts.
The parents have never, as far as I know, told how this ''abduction'' happened ? No details about entry and exit etc. We have just been fed a story about an abduction is all we have had.
-
Amaral said he could prove Maddie died in the apartment and her death was covered up..
Has Amaral proved this yet?
I don't know what The ECHR will say. But then I don't understand how Portuguese Law could allow this to happen.
Is Portugal so afraid of what happened before their two Glorious Revolutions that they will err on the wrong side to protect those who facilitated the abuse of Human Rights in the first place?
The First Revolution was done with good intent. Unfortunately they were mostly illiterate and didn't know what they were doing. And then the Old Guard reinvented themselves and took over during The Second Revolution some two years later.. This is what Portugal has today.
-
It is indeed a pity that those who claim human rights as victims, gave not a thought to three children's human rights who were subjected to a lifetime of possible mental abuse
- One who may or may not be dead, and two who have had to live with what their parents did to them leaving them vulnerable like that. And the throw back of that by being disliked by many people which is displayed in public.
-
It is indeed a pity that those who claim human rights as victims, gave not a thought to three children's human rights who were subjected to a lifetime of possible mental abuse
- One who may or may not be dead, and two who have had to live with what their parents did to them leaving them vulnerable like that. And the throw back of that by being disliked by many people which is displayed in public.
How do you know they give no thoughts... More sceptic opinion as fact from someone who knows so little, about the case you think the McCann's were, arrested.
I would say the McCann's care, a lot about Maddie and her rights... It would seem you care more, about continually bashing the parents.. Pathetic.. Imo
-
Ofcourse everyone knows Madeleins human rights have been violated, due to her parents descision to leave her without proper care and attention. so what ever happened, Maddies rights have been violated as a result of parental behaviour.
-
Ofcourse everyone knows Madeleins human rights have been violated, due to her parents descision to leave her without proper care and attention. so what ever happened, Maddies rights have been violated as a result of parental behaviour.
I do read your posts but as they contain little sense ..imo... I don't see the point in replying further.. Like other sceptics every thread descends into a hate McCann fest..pathetic.. Imo
-
I do read your posts but as they contain little sense ..imo... I don't see the point in replying further.. Like other sceptics every thread descends into a hate McCann fest..pathetic.. Imo
Most other threads turn into bash the PJ or Amaral,never the twain shall meet.
-
Amaral said he could prove Maddie died in the apartment and her death was covered up..
He did, but that wasn't the reason the judge gave for ruling in favour of the McCanns. Instead she relied on Amaral's alleged reserve duty, as the SC judges noted;
"that sentence ended up resolving the issue by resorting to the presumption of innocence of the claimants Kate and Gerald McCann and to the reserve duty of the defendant Gonçalo Amaral,..." page 55
In fact she made Amaral's alleged reserve duty "the cornerstone of the entire construction leading to the conclusion that the conduct of that defendant was illicit" Page 48
So Amaral's alleged reserve duty was the cornerstone of the first instance judge's ruling. Remove that and everthing based on it goes too. The appeal court judges rejected it, and the McCann's lawyer didn't include it in her appeal to the Supreme Court. (see page 48 paragraph beginning The appellants)
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=7937.0
-
He did, but that wasn't the reason the judge gave for ruling in favour of the McCanns. Instead she relied on Amaral's alleged reserve duty, as the SC judges noted;
"that sentence ended up resolving the issue by resorting to the presumption of innocence of the claimants Kate and Gerald McCann and to the reserve duty of the defendant Gonçalo Amaral,..." page 55
In fact she made Amaral's alleged reserve duty "the cornerstone of the entire construction leading to the conclusion that the conduct of that defendant was illicit" Page 48
So Amaral's alleged reserve duty was the cornerstone of the first instance judge's ruling. Remove that and everthing based on it goes too. The appeal court judges rejected it, and the McCann's lawyer didn't include it in her appeal to the Supreme Court. (see page 48 paragraph beginning The appellants)
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=7937.0
It doesn't matter what the judge ruled on.... She found in favour of the McCann's so their human rights were not affected. The SC judgement did pose a possible breach of articles 2 and 8 so that's what's important imo
The subsequent appeal to the SC ensured they had exhausted all domestic remedies
-
It doesn't matter what the judge ruled on.... She found in favour of the McCann's so their human rights were not affected. The SC judgement did pose a possible breach of articles 2 and 8 so that's what's important imo
The subsequent appeal to the SC ensured they had exhausted all domestic remedies
You clearly don't understand the role of Appeal courts. They examine the grounds on which a judge in a lower court based his/her judgement and either support or overturn it.
-
You clearly don't understand the role of Appeal courts. They examine the grounds on which a judge in a lower court based his/her judgement and either support or overturn it.
you clearly dont understand what I understand.
-
you clearly dont understand what I understand.
I understand that you have been unable to counter my (cited) posts with anything of substance.
-
I understand that you have been unable to counter my (cited) posts with anything of substance.
you dont seem to understand thats your opinion which doesnt show much insight..imo......I havent seen you post anything of substance...thats my opinion
-
you dont seem to understand thats your opinion which doesnt show much insight..imo......I havent seen you post anything of substance...thats my opinion
@)(++(*
-
@)(++(*
I don't think resorting to emoticons is very impressive
-
You clearly don't understand the role of Appeal courts. They examine the grounds on which a judge in a lower court based his/her judgement and either support or overturn it.
From the SC judgement..
At the centre of this trial, there is a conflict between two existing rights, the right to good name and reputation of the claimants (through the presumption of innocence that they always were entitled to) and the right to freedom of expression of the defendant, in the concrete field of the right to opinion he is entitled..
Could they have been any clearer.... The ECHR have an interesting article on this very point which I have cited many times
You can claim anything you wish... But it's clear from the, SC what was at the heart of the trial
-
From the SC judgement..
At the centre of this trial, there is a conflict between two existing rights, the right to good name and reputation of the claimants (through the presumption of innocence that they always were entitled to) and the right to freedom of expression of the defendant, in the concrete field of the right to opinion he is entitled..
Could they have been any clearer.... The ECHR have an interesting article on this very point which I have cited many times
You can claim anything you wish... But it's clear from the, SC what was at the heart of the trial
Please provide the page number.
-
Please provide the page number.
its page 5 on the link you yourself provided
-
I understand that you have been unable to counter my (cited) posts with anything of substance.
At the centre of this trial, there is a conflict between two existing rights, the right to good name and reputation of the claimants (through the presumption of innocence that they always were entitled to) and the right to freedom of expression of the defendant, in the concrete field of the right to opinion he is entitled..
nothing about "duty of reserve"....its quite clear what is at the heart of the dispute
-
its page 5 on the link you yourself provided
I thought it looked familiar; it's taken from the first instance judgement. Not everything in that document is the opinion of the SC judges; their bit doesn't begin until page 48 onwards;
Pages 1-39/40 Taken from the first judgement.
Pages 40, 2.2-44 Duartes arguments.
Pages 45, 2.3-48 Guerra & Paz response.
Page 48 onwards; the judges findings.
Just to prove my point, here's where it originated; on page 35 in the first judgement;
II. At the centre of this trial, there is a conflict between two existing rights, the right to good name and reputation of the claimants (through the presumption of innocence that they always were entitled to) and the right to freedom of expression of the defendant, in the concrete field of the right to opinion he is entitled to.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=6307.0
-
I thought it looked familiar; it's taken from the first instance judgement. Not everything in that document is the opinion of the SC judges; their bit doesn't begin until page 48 onwards;
Pages 1-39/40 Taken from the first judgement.
Pages 40, 2.2-44 Duartes arguments.
Pages 45, 2.3-48 Guerra & Paz response.
Page 48 onwards; the judges findings.
Just to prove my point, here's where it originated; on page 35 in the first judgement;
II. At the centre of this trial, there is a conflict between two existing rights, the right to good name and reputation of the claimants (through the presumption of innocence that they always were entitled to) and the right to freedom of expression of the defendant, in the concrete field of the right to opinion he is entitled to.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=6307.0
It proves that the point was raised during the trial which is the pre requisite for ECHR action
-
I thought it looked familiar; it's taken from the first instance judgement. Not everything in that document is the opinion of the SC judges; their bit doesn't begin until page 48 onwards;
Pages 1-39/40 Taken from the first judgement.
Pages 40, 2.2-44 Duartes arguments.
Pages 45, 2.3-48 Guerra & Paz response.
Page 48 onwards; the judges findings.
Just to prove my point, here's where it originated; on page 35 in the first judgement;
II. At the centre of this trial, there is a conflict between two existing rights, the right to good name and reputation of the claimants (through the presumption of innocence that they always were entitled to) and the right to freedom of expression of the defendant, in the concrete field of the right to opinion he is entitled to.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=6307.0
This is from page 74 and is clearly the judges findings...
What is at stake, fundamentally, is to identify the legal good that will be, concretely, prevailing, taking into account that, in each conflict resolution, the balance pans, to begin with, are in a position of equilibrium, since freedom of expression and honour must start from a position of equality.
For this purpose, it is necessary to introduce the respective evaluation criteria in the pan of freedom of expression or in the pan of honour.
And it is playing with weights and counterweights that, in the end, it will appear which of the pans weighs more.
Well, in the present case, as it results from the foregoing, the pan that weighs more and is the freedom of expression one.
Ive quoted this several times too over the past 2 years......a balance between articles 8 and 10....something else ive posted over the past 2 years...a clear case for the ECHr
-
It proves that the point was raised during the trial which is the pre requisite for ECHR action
We shall see............one day.
-
We shall see............one day.
looks like you have finally understood my point
-
looks like you have finally understood my point
I've made my point; Amaral lost in the lowest court because he was an ex policeman, according to the judge. Take that reason away as the Appeal Court did and her judgement is dead in the water.
-
I've made my point; Amaral lost in the lowest court because he was an ex policeman, according to the judge. Take that reason away as the Appeal Court did and her judgement is dead in the water.
amaral lost in the lower court for the reason you have said...fact
therefore the balance between articles 8 and 10 were not even considered..
tHey were considered by the Sc and the SC ruled in favour of amarals rights under article 10
all that is fact
My opinion based on past case law is that the SC got it wrong...as they have done before
That is a well reasoned opinion based on fact.
-
I've made my point; Amaral lost in the lowest court because he was an ex policeman, according to the judge. Take that reason away as the Appeal Court did and her judgement is dead in the water.
more opinion presented as fact...that seriously questions your credibility...IMO
-
I've made my point; Amaral lost in the lowest court because he was an ex policeman, according to the judge. Take that reason away as the Appeal Court did and her judgement is dead in the water.
How can they take that away? He will always be an ex-policeman.
-
amaral lost in the lower court for the reason you have said...fact
therefore the balance between articles 8 and 10 were not even considered..
tHey were considered by the Sc and the SC ruled in favour of amarals rights under article 10
all that is fact
My opinion based on past case law is that the SC got it wrong...as they have done before
That is a well reasoned opinion based on fact.
Of course the first judge considered the balance between articles 8 and 10;
"Bearing in mind that legal mosaic, how to solve the conflict in this case between the rights of the claimants Gerald and Kate McCann to their good name and reputation and the defendant Goncalo Amaral's right to his opinion as resorting to freedom of expression he's entitled to?"
The judge is well aware that Amaral is saying nothing new. Others have said the same, as did the released files. So she turns to his former occupation and says he acted illegally;
"This form of resolving the conflict between the rights reveals the illegality of the conduct of the defendant Goncalo Amaral in respect of the effects of article 484 of the Civil Code."
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=6307.0
The Appeal court rejected her claim that he acted illegally, therefore her judgement is overturned. She relied on the 'illegality' of Amaral's actions because without that she couldn't find a reason to rule in the McCann's favour.
Neither could the SC judges, which is why they ruled as they did.
-
Of course the first judge considered the balance between articles 8 and 10;
"Bearing in mind that legal mosaic, how to solve the conflict in this case between the rights of the claimants Gerald and Kate McCann to their good name and reputation and the defendant Goncalo Amaral's right to his opinion as resorting to freedom of expression he's entitled to?"
The judge is well aware that Amaral is saying nothing new. Others have said the same, as did the released files. So she turns to his former occupation and says he acted illegally;
"This form of resolving the conflict between the rights reveals the illegality of the conduct of the defendant Goncalo Amaral in respect of the effects of article 484 of the Civil Code."
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=6307.0
The Appeal court rejected her claim that he acted illegally, therefore her judgement is overturned. She relied on the 'illegality' of Amaral's actions because without that she couldn't find a reason to rule in the McCann's favour.
Neither could the SC judges, which is why they ruled as they did.
You continue to post your opinion as fact
-
You continue to post your opinion as fact
I was demonstrating the error of your opinion;
snip/
"therefore the balance between articles 8 and 10 were not even considered.."
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=8465.msg554443#msg554443
-
I was demonstrating the error of your opinion;
snip/
"therefore the balance between articles 8 and 10 were not even considered.."
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=8465.msg554443#msg554443
It seems the judge in the, first instance didn't need to consider it as, she made a ruling based on the duty of reserve
-
It seems the judge in the, first instance didn't need to consider it as, she made a ruling based on the duty of reserve
Of course she considered it, that was the whole point of the hearing. Unfortunately she seems to have chosen the wrong way to solve it.
-
Of course she considered it, that was the whole point of the hearing. Unfortunately she seems to have chosen the wrong way to solve it.
She may have chosen the wrong way to solve it... But imo the SC were, also wrong and that's why the case is now with the, ECHR...
-
She may have chosen the wrong way to solve it... But imo the SC were, also wrong and that's why the case is now with the, ECHR...
Take away Amaral's alleged 'illegality' and his right to freedom of expression outweighs the McCann's right to reputation.
-
Take away Amaral's alleged 'illegality' and his right to freedom of expression outweighs the McCann's right to reputation.
Again... Opinion not fact
-
Again... Opinion not fact
The McCann's case rested on it from the beginning;
page 7
"A) The claimants, concerning the pertinence of the trial, invoke that their constitutionally guaranteed rights are superior to the eventual freedom of expression that the defendants may benefit of, that the book and remaining pieces gathered in this suit are not information and aim at transforming the theory of their involvement in the death of the claimant Madeleine and the concealment of her body in the “result “ of the criminal investigation, and that Goncalo Amaral violated his duties as a State servant to which he was constrained being an inspector of the Judicial Police.
Which is why the judge said on page 31;
"In view of the requests made, the decision on the merits essentially depends on the answer to the following question :
- Is the book written by the defendant Goncalo Amaral, the adaptation of this book for the audiovisual documentary and the interview given by the same defendant illicit /anti-juridical according to article 484° of the Civil Procedure Code ? "
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=6307.0
-
The McCann's case rested on it from the beginning;
page 7
"A) The claimants, concerning the pertinence of the trial, invoke that their constitutionally guaranteed rights are superior to the eventual freedom of expression that the defendants may benefit of, that the book and remaining pieces gathered in this suit are not information and aim at transforming the theory of their involvement in the death of the claimant Madeleine and the concealment of her body in the “result “ of the criminal investigation, and that Goncalo Amaral violated his duties as a State servant to which he was constrained being an inspector of the Judicial Police.
Which is why the judge said on page 31;
"In view of the requests made, the decision on the merits essentially depends on the answer to the following question :
- Is the book written by the defendant Goncalo Amaral, the adaptation of this book for the audiovisual documentary and the interview given by the same defendant illicit /anti-juridical according to article 484° of the Civil Procedure Code ? "
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=6307.0
Doesn't matter what you post the case, will now be decided on the relevant articles...
-
Could the fact that this was a case against a Portuguese National in a Portuguese Court have anything to do with the outcome in Portugal?
-
Could the fact that this was a case against a Portuguese National in a Portuguese Court have anything to do with the outcome in Portugal?
Are you suggesting that the Portuguese judges are biased?
-
Are you suggesting that the Portuguese judges are biased?
Yes.
-
Are you suggesting that the Portuguese judges are biased?
I would say close on 100%
-
Doesn't matter what you post the case, will now be decided on the relevant articles...
If found admissable the case of McCann & Healy v Portugal will indeed be examined. The question being did the state of Portugal deprive the couple of any of their human rights under articles 6, 8 or 10? (Not, please note, did Amaral deprive the couple of any of their human rights)
-
If found admissable the case of McCann & Healy v Portugal will indeed be examined. The question being did the state of Portugal deprive the couple of any of their human rights under articles 6, 8 or 10? (Not, please note, did Amaral deprive the couple of any of their human rights)
Semantics...it would be amarals actions that instigated the deprivation... If amaral then repeated his claims action could be taken against him
-
Take away Amaral's alleged 'illegality' and his right to freedom of expression outweighs the McCann's right to reputation.
How did they figure that? I would like to look at that scale to see if it weighs out evenly
-
I would say close on 100%
Quite difficult to achieve in a civil legal system where there are written laws and a written constitution.
-
Quite difficult to achieve in a civil legal system where there are written laws and a written constitution.
When a judge can say it's reasonable for a man to beat his wife.. Because the bible says so..
When a man can violently rape a British hitch hiker and receive a suspended sentence..
Then I think anything is possible
-
If found admissable the case of McCann & Healy v Portugal will indeed be examined. The question being did the state of Portugal deprive the couple of any of their human rights under articles 6, 8 or 10? (Not, please note, did Amaral deprive the couple of any of their human rights)
Mind you, can you imagine the fury and anger on here if the McCanns fail to come out of this smelling of roses
-
Mind you, can you imagine the fury and anger on here if the McCanns fail to come out of this smelling of roses
Can you imagine the furore if they win their case
-
Can you imagine the furore if they win their case
I don't think there'll be much. Us sceptics tend to be pragmatic souls, you know 8(0(*
-
I don't think there'll be much. Us sceptics tend to be pragmatic souls, you know 8(0(*
Don't you remember what gunit said about a McCann victory
If, by some chance, the ECHR finds that Portugal has breached the McCann's human rights they will have achieved more than if they had defeated Amaral. They will have discredited not just him, but his entire country.
-
Can you imagine the furore if they win their case
Very doubtful given their attitude towards the original Portuguese Police investigation. Suspects who refuse to cooperate with police deserve all the get imo. They should thank their lucky stars that they weren't charged with child neglect.
-
Very doubtful given their attitude towards the original Portuguese Police investigation imo.
very probable imo...based on other ECHR cases I have looked at
-
The Law can be a very peculiar thing. I prefer to wait and see and then accept what the ECHR say.
No point in doing otherwise, as there is no appeal against their decisions.
-
very probable imo...based on other ECHR cases I have looked at
Are there many cases of child neglect resulting in the disappearance of a child where the parents behaviour was questionable?
Cite if you can. $65*
-
Are there many cases of child neglect resulting in the disappearance of a child where the parents behaviour was questionable?
Cite if you can.
Thats your opinion...I dont believe their behavior re the investigationn was questionable....i think the initial investigation was highly questionable and inept
-
Mind you, can you imagine the fury and anger on here if the McCanns fail to come out of this smelling of roses
Indeed. The ECHR will join the PJ, the Portuguese Judiciary, Amaral and all his officers and everyone who doesn't believe in abduction and be accused of 'not understanding the evidence, being biased and inflicting even more pain on an innocent couple and their families who have lost a much beloved child'
-
Indeed. The ECHR will join the PJ, the Portuguese Judiciary, Amaral and all his officers and everyone who doesn't believe in abduction and be accused of 'not understanding the evidence, being biased and inflicting even more pain on an innocent couple and their families who have lost a much beloved child'
Just reading through this thread, it is VERY clear, as it has been from day one, this is all about the parents 'good name' their reputation. How sad that is- even if they win they have not moved on inch nearer to finding their daughter.
The supporters, as as always as if in a war will be very happy,joyous and gloating no doubt. I will be indefferent, there is no victorious outcome from the sad affair of little Maddie. WHO IS THE ONLY VICTIM in this scenario.
-
I don't think there'll be much. Us sceptics tend to be pragmatic souls, you know 8(0(*
Then justify your means.
-
Then justify your means.
*%87
-
Just reading through this thread, it is VERY clear, as it has been from day one, this is all about the parents 'good name' their reputation. How sad that is- even if they win they have not moved on inch nearer to finding their daughter.
The supporters, as as always as if in a war will be very happy,joyous and gloating no doubt. I will be indefferent, there is no victorious outcome from the sad affair of little Maddie. WHO IS THE ONLY VICTIM in this scenario.
It's what happens when posters stick to the thread title rather than turn every thread into a McCann hate fest
-
Just reading through this thread, it is VERY clear, as it has been from day one, this is all about the parents 'good name' their reputation. How sad that is- even if they win they have not moved on inch nearer to finding their daughter.
The supporters, as as always as if in a war will be very happy,joyous and gloating no doubt. I will be indefferent, there is no victorious outcome from the sad affair of little Maddie. WHO IS THE ONLY VICTIM in this scenario.
I think it's way too late to improve the McCann's reputation, because that doesn't depend on the outcome of court cases. It certainly won't change my mind. One thing is certain; the ECHR can't declare them innocent, because despite Duarte's attempts to make it so, the archiving despatch couldn't do that.
-
I think it's way too late to improve the McCann's reputation, because that doesn't depend on the outcome of court cases. It certainly won't change my mind. One thing is certain; the ECHR can't declare them innocent, because despite Duarte's attempts to make it so, the archiving despatch couldn't do that.
Indeed G!
I love the banal diatribe about hating the McCanns from those same people who try to blame their predcament on everyone else. They just need reminding the Parents were responsible for their children.PERIOD.
ECHR won't change a thing- more money to waste I guess. I wonder how the fund is bearing up. Are people rushing to 'fund' their attempt to get 'justice' ...from the ever so costly ECHR.
If Portugual are found guilty, they can just pin up two fingers and not even bother.
-
Indeed G!
I love the banal diatribe about hating the McCanns from those same people who try to blame their predcament on everyone else. They just need reminding the Parents were responsible for their children.PERIOD.
ECHR won't change a thing- more money to waste I guess. I wonder how the fund is bearing up. Are people rushing to 'fund' their attempt to get 'justice' ...from the ever so costly ECHR.
If Portugual are found guilty, they can just pin up two fingers and not even bother.
The SC judges were very careful to quote the cases where the ECHR found against them because of their habit of placing 'honour' above freedom of expression. If they now get sanctioned for doing the opposite I wouldn't blame them for losing patience.
-
Indeed G!
I love the banal diatribe about hating the McCanns from those same people who try to blame their predcament on everyone else. They just need reminding the Parents were responsible for their children.PERIOD.
ECHR won't change a thing- more money to waste I guess. I wonder how the fund is bearing up. Are people rushing to 'fund' their attempt to get 'justice' ...from the ever so costly ECHR.
If Portugual are found guilty, they can just pin up two fingers and not even bother.
I think that is very true..
One or two might get over-excited, but the great mass of people will just get on with the their lives as usual - IMO
-
I think it's way too late to improve the McCann's reputation, because that doesn't depend on the outcome of court cases. It certainly won't change my mind. One thing is certain; the ECHR can't declare them innocent, because despite Duarte's attempts to make it so, the archiving despatch couldn't do that.
Courts don't declare people innocent... Are you under some sort of misaprehension
-
The SC judges were very careful to quote the cases where the ECHR found against them because of their habit of placing 'honour' above freedom of expression. If they now get sanctioned for doing the opposite I wouldn't blame them for losing patience.
They misunderstood then and they still misunderstand imo
-
Indeed G!
I love the banal diatribe about hating the McCanns from those same people who try to blame their predcament on everyone else. They just need reminding the Parents were responsible for their children.PERIOD.
ECHR won't change a thing- more money to waste I guess. I wonder how the fund is bearing up. Are people rushing to 'fund' their attempt to get 'justice' ...from the ever so costly ECHR.
If Portugual are found guilty, they can just pin up two fingers and not even bother.
You need to read what gunit has already posted Re the consequences of a McCann win
-
Very doubtful given their attitude towards the original Portuguese Police investigation. Suspects who refuse to cooperate with police deserve all the get imo. They should thank their lucky stars that they weren't charged with child neglect.
Hard to believe you’re a mod on the Miscarriage of Justice forum sometimes.
-
I think that is very true..
One or two might get over-excited, but the great mass of people will just get on with the their lives as usual - IMO
I think it will be very interesting to see what happens..
Of course if it was a storyline in coronation street you and others would probably be intrigued
-
Mind you, can you imagine the fury and anger on here if the McCanns fail to come out of this smelling of roses
Where was the fury and anger (tautology?) on here when the McCanns lost at the Supreme Court?
-
Just use the search facility, I'm sure you'll find it if you try hard enough ?{)(**
-
Courts don't declare people innocent... Are you under some sort of misaprehension
Isn't that what I said?
-
Just use the search facility, I'm sure you'll find it if you try hard enough ?{)(**
If it’s that hard to find then the place obviously wasn’t rocked to its foundations by all the anger (not to mention fury).
-
Isn't that what I said?
I think we've been through this before and you were not able to provide a cite from Duarte or the the McCanns that they had been declared innocent
-
Hard to believe you’re a mod on the Miscarriage of Justice forum sometimes.
Well, sometimes Angelo has other things to do. We aren't all here 24/7. So you might be grateful for the fact that i am.
No? Probably not. I don't really care.
-
Well, sometimes Angelo has other things to do. We aren't all here 24/7. So you might be grateful for the fact that i am.
No? Probably not. I don't really care.
My point was he (or she) is of the belief that suspects must always fully cooperate with the police otherwise they deserve everything that’s coming to them, nothing to do with you being here or not, but a strange position for someone who is concerned (allegedly) about miscarriages of justice.
-
My point was he (or she) is of the belief that suspects must always fully cooperate with the police otherwise they deserve everything that’s coming to them, nothing to do with you being here or not, but a strange position for someone who is concerned (allegedly) about miscarriages of justice.
What does that mean? I don't care of what you think of me, while Angelo does his best, on the rare occasion that he has the time or patience. It is not for me to criticises.
-
What does that mean? I don't care of what you think of me, while Angelo does his best, on the rare occasion that he has the time or patience. It is not for me to criticises.
I haven’t made any comment about you whatsoever. what’s the problem here?
-
I think we've been through this before and you were not able to provide a cite from Duarte or the the McCanns that they had been declared innocent
That's what they were hoping for imo.
-
That's what they were hoping for imo.
I think that's more than a tad ridiculous
-
If it’s that hard to find then the place obviously wasn’t rocked to its foundations by all the anger (not to mention fury).
I remember the feeling as one of incredulity tempered by the hope that Kate and Gerry would have the strength to take their case to the ECHR which they have done to the obvious chagrin of one or two posters here.
-
I haven’t made any comment about you whatsoever. what’s the problem here?
There is none.
-
I think it will be very interesting to see what happens..
Of course if it was a storyline in coronation street you and others would probably be intrigued
You never know what they weave into the story line.
-
I remember the feeling as one of incredulity tempered by the hope that Kate and Gerry would have the strength to take their case to the ECHR which they have done to the obvious chagrin of one or two posters here.
Why incredulous? The first decision had already been overturned on appeal. If their application to the ECHR is as poorly prepared as their case in the Portuguese courts was you can expect to be incredulous again in my opinion.
-
Why incredulous? The first decision had already been overturned on appeal. If their application to the ECHR is as poorly prepared as their case in the Portuguese courts was you can expect to be incredulous again in my opinion.
If their case was so poorly prepared they never would have won it in the first instance.
-
From what I have read the SC made a factual error in it's interpretation of the presumption of innocence. They claimed it didn't apply in a civil case and from what I have read they are wrong .
There is a case on the ECHR website where the POI is used to successfully challenge the right to free speech.
The SC seem to be using the example where the POI cannot be used in a civil claim for compensation in a case such as Barry George
-
From what I have read the SC made a factual error in it's interpretation of the presumption of innocence. They claimed it didn't apply in a civil case and from what I have read they are wrong .
There is a case on the ECHR website where the POI is used to successfully challenge the right to free speech.
The SC seem to be using the example where the POI cannot be used in a civil claim for compensation in a case such as Barry George
The presumption of innocence is necessary to ensure a fair trial in a criminal court. In a civil case neither side is entitled to the presumption of innocence, so the SC judges were factually correct.
-
The presumption of innocence is necessary to ensure a fair trial in a criminal court. In a civil case neither side is entitled to the presumption of innocence, so the SC judges were factually correct.
Do you have a cite for this?
-
The presumption of innocence is necessary to ensure a fair trial in a criminal court. In a civil case neither side is entitled to the presumption of innocence, so the SC judges were factually correct.
Cite
I dont think you have a very good understanding of the issues involved.
I have provided a cite as you are, aware from an ECHR case where the POI was applied to a civil case.
If you actually read what the SC said on the issue... And the cite they provided... You will see that the POI does not apply to a civil claim for compensation FOLLOWING a criminal trial
Barry George being a good example
Perhaps the SC didn't understand the principle either
-
Why incredulous? The first decision had already been overturned on appeal. If their application to the ECHR is as poorly prepared as their case in the Portuguese courts was you can expect to be incredulous again in my opinion.
I couldn't name one sceptic ,including myself, who has an issue with the McCanns going to the ECHR. It is just interesting in many ways, and so a discussion ensued via a forum. Some people just look at any word in a sentence and go gaga about 'innocent'parents. They also seek out people who do not believe the parents to be so 'innocent' as no crime has been defined as yet. just tot call them McCann bashers. I love it!
-
Cite
I dont think you have a very good understanding of the issues involved.
I have provided a cite as you are, aware from an ECHR case where the POI was applied to a civil case.
If you actually read what the SC said on the issue... And the cite they provided... You will see that the POI does not apply to a civil claim for compensation FOLLOWING a criminal trial
Barry George being a good example
Perhaps the SC didn't understand the principle either
Civil cases look at liability, not at guilt, so the presumption of innocence isn't relevant in a civil case. The point in this case is how and why it came to be included by the claimants and if that was justified.
-
Civil cases look at liability, not at guilt, so the presumption of innocence isn't relevant in a civil case. The point in this case is how and why it came to be included by the claimants and if that was justified.
G you can post this a thousand times. Some people will not understand, or want to accept it.
-
Civil cases look at liability, not at guilt, so the presumption of innocence isn't relevant in a civil case. The point in this case is how and why it came to be included by the claimants and if that was justified.
I've provided a cite as you must be aware as you replied to it... Where the POI was used and considered valid by the ECHR in a civil case. Do you really not remember.. I'll post it, again later.
That shows your claim... And the claim of the SC... To be totally wrong
-
Civil cases look at liability, not at guilt, so the presumption of innocence isn't relevant in a civil case. The point in this case is how and why it came to be included by the claimants and if that was justified.
I think its now 3 times Ive posted this...it shows that in a civil case for defamation the accused are entitled to the presumption of innocence. This is from the ECHR website...it proves conclusively that i am right an you are wrong..
Ruokanen and Others v. Finland
6 April 2010
The applicants were an editor-in-chief and a journalist and a publishing company. They
complained about their conviction of defamation following publication of an article stating
that a student had been raped in September 2000 by members of a baseball team at a
party to celebrate their victory in the Finnish championship. The applicants had been
ordered to pay over 80,000 euros in damages to compensate each member of the
baseball team.
The Court held that there had been no violation of Article 10 (freedom of expression)
of the Convention, finding that the domestic courts had struck a fair balance between the
competing interests involved, i.e. the applicants’ right to freedom of expression and the
right to reputation of the alleged perpetrators of a crime. It observed in particular that
imperatives other than matters of public concern had to be weighed up before an
incident was reported by the media to the public as fact. The right to presumption of
innocence and reputation of third parties was of equal importance especially where
serious accusations of sexual misconduct were concerned
www.echr.coe.int/Documents/FS_Reputation_ENG.pdf. page 11
ReplyQuoteNotify
Its about time you accepted you are wrong
-
G you can post this a thousand times. Some people will not understand, or want to accept it.
I dont accept it because its wrong and Ive posted a case from teh ECHR to show im right and gunit is wrong. The interesting question now is ...will you ...gunit and other sceptics accept the overwhelming evidence or just ignore it
-
I dont accept it because its wrong and Ive posted a case from teh ECHR to show im right and gunit is wrong. The interesting question now is ...will you ...gunit and other sceptics accept the overwhelming evidence or just ignore it
We will wait for the ECHR to make their decision.
-
We will wait for the ECHR to make their decision.
The point in dispute is, whether the POI applies in a civil case... I've provided proof it does... There's nothing to wait for on that point
-
I dont accept it because its wrong and Ive posted a case from teh ECHR to show im right and gunit is wrong. The interesting question now is ...will you ...gunit and other sceptics accept the overwhelming evidence or just ignore it
I am sorry Davel. I cannot accept the McCanns will win based from the cite you have given. The reason being they are two very different cases. You will understand each case may seem similar but they are very different, as an example; not everyone who commits murder/manslaughter has the same sentence. I am not saying this because I do not believe their thesis, I just believe they are different is all.
-
I am sorry Davel. I cannot accept the McCanns will win based from the cite you have given. The reason being they are two very different cases. You will understand each case may seem similar but they are very different, as an example; not everyone who commits murder/manslaughter has the same sentence. I am not saying this because I do not believe their thesis, I just believe they are different is all.
In this post I haven't claimed they will win I've simply provided proof that the POI applies and that gunit is wrong
-
The point in dispute is, whether the POI applies in a civil case... I've provided proof it does... There's nothing to wait for on that point
There could be other factors that upset the balances.
-
There could be other factors that upset the balances.
If.. As gunit seems to think... The SC have said the POI does not apply in a civil case then that is a massive mistake by the SC
-
Posters are reminded of the forum rules and should not engage in any conduct which breaches those rules. Sniping, goading, use of inappropriate language, posting insulting comments and unnecessary criticism of other members should be avoided. Moderators are also reminded of the need to lead by example and should avoid inappropriate comment or unnecessary moderation.
Members can message me at any time if necessary.
-
In this post I haven't claimed they will win I've simply provided proof that the POI applies and that gunit is wrong
Cross purposes perhaps?
G has only ever discussed surrounding and applying to the McCanns case regarding the FOI and POI.
I thougth you had said they will win as they have a good case. My mistake.
-
Cross purposes perhaps?
G has only ever discussed surrounding and applying to the McCanns case regarding the FOI and POI.
I thougth you had said they will win as they have a good case. My mistake.
No problem... I have made that point but this series of posts was specifically POI in a case, such as this...
-
I think its now 3 times Ive posted this...it shows that in a civil case for defamation the accused are entitled to the presumption of innocence. This is from the ECHR website...it proves conclusively that i am right an you are wrong..
Ruokanen and Others v. Finland
6 April 2010
The applicants were an editor-in-chief and a journalist and a publishing company. They
complained about their conviction of defamation following publication of an article stating
that a student had been raped in September 2000 by members of a baseball team at a
party to celebrate their victory in the Finnish championship. The applicants had been
ordered to pay over 80,000 euros in damages to compensate each member of the
baseball team.
The Court held that there had been no violation of Article 10 (freedom of expression)
of the Convention, finding that the domestic courts had struck a fair balance between the
competing interests involved, i.e. the applicants’ right to freedom of expression and the
right to reputation of the alleged perpetrators of a crime. It observed in particular that
imperatives other than matters of public concern had to be weighed up before an
incident was reported by the media to the public as fact. The right to presumption of
innocence and reputation of third parties was of equal importance especially where
serious accusations of sexual misconduct were concerned
www.echr.coe.int/Documents/FS_Reputation_ENG.pdf. page 11
ReplyQuoteNotify
Its about time you accepted you are wrong
You do realise that this was a case of crminal defamation, not civil?
-
You do realise that this was a case of crminal defamation, not civil?
Defamation is a criminal offence in Portugal is it not?
-
You do realise that this was a case of crminal defamation, not civil?
not at the ECHR it wasnt
-
Another interesting point is that from what I can see the players were never charged with any offence....but the ECHR still ruled they were entitled to the presumption of innocence
-
G you can post this a thousand times. Some people will not understand, or want to accept it.
I think sceptics tend to get themselves trapped in a groundhog time warp.
The civil case is over.
Everyone else has moved on to whatever the opinion and judgement of the European Court will be; in my opinion therefore making the past deliberations of the Portuguese judges an historic irrelevance as far as discussion is concerned.
-
In this post I haven't claimed they will win I've simply provided proof that the POI applies and that gunit is wrong
Precisely: whatever the outcome of the case Kate and Gerry McCann are without a doubt entitled to the presumption of innocence. In my opinion the Portuguese Appeal Court judgement specifically denies that to them.
-
Precisely: whatever the outcome of the case Kate and Gerry McCann are without a doubt entitled to the presumption of innocence. In my opinion the Portuguese Appeal Court judgement specifically denies that to them.
Oh the irony, especially in the context of your previous post. @)(++(*
You clearly haven't got over the SC decision
-
Oh the irony, especially in the context of your previous post. @)(++(*
You clearly haven't got over the SC decision
With reference to John's post ... please keep comments general and do not personalise them; I've noted you tend to do this quite often with my posts and others.
-
Defamation is a criminal offence in Portugal is it not?
It can be either. The McCann case was a civil case.
-
It can be either. The McCann case was a civil case.
That is not my understanding.
-
That is not my understanding.
What is your understanding ?
-
What is your understanding ?
That defamation is a criminal offence in Portugal, however damages to reputation can be claimed under civil law.
-
I think sceptics tend to get themselves trapped in a groundhog time warp.
The civil case is over.
Everyone else has moved on to whatever the opinion and judgement of the European Court will be; in my opinion therefore making the past deliberations of the Portuguese judges an historic irrelevance as far as discussion is concerned.
Any evidence that Portugal denied the McCanns their human rights must be taken from the accounts of the proceedings in the Portuguese courts, so those accounts are very relevant.
-
Another interesting point is that from what I can see the players were never charged with any offence....but the ECHR still ruled they were entitled to the presumption of innocence
A very different case because Amaral described a criminal investigation up to 10th September which culminated in the McCanns being made arguidos. Then he gave his opinion about the facts he described, which is not an offence.
-
A very different case because Amaral described a criminal investigation up to 10th September which culminated in the McCanns being made arguidos. Then he gave his opinion about the facts he described, which is not an offence.
Amaral did more than give opinion. He said he could prove things.
When was the documentary aired... He was still saying it then
-
Amaral did more than give opinion. He said he could prove things.
When was the documentary aired... He was still saying it then
Well the SC judges disagreed with you.
-
Well the SC judges disagreed with you.
I'm actually stating facts
-
Amaral did more than give opinion. He said he could prove things.
When was the documentary aired... He was still saying it then
Was that "could prove" dependant on Amaral staying in the role? Once they took him off the job his ability to "prove" a case against the McCanns dropped to zero.
He isn't actually saying he "has the proof", for if he had the proof it wouldn't be libel.
-
Was that "could prove" dependant on Amaral staying in the role? Once they took him off the job his ability to "prove" a case against the McCanns dropped to zero.
He isn't actually saying he "has the proof", for if he had the proof it wouldn't be libel.
He is actually saying he has the proof
It's been posted many times..
I the documentary he said... In the next 50 mins I will prove ....that's pretty clear ..
So he is, saying he has the proof.. He is saying he will state it in the documentary... But the evidence he stated didn't prove anything
-
He is actually saying he has the proof
It's been posted many times..
I the documentary he said... In the next 50 mins I will prove ....that's pretty clear ..
So he is, saying he has the proof.. He is saying he will state it in the documentary... But the evidence he stated didn't prove anything
Well doesn't he also blame that on poor translation? He is speaking in Portuguese and we are reading it in English. You'd have to ask whether the meaning came across properly.
Surely he wouldn't say "I will prove" if he didn't actually have the proof.
-
Well doesn't he also blame that on poor translation? He is speaking in Portuguese and we are reading it in English. You'd have to ask whether the meaning came across properly.
Surely he wouldn't say "I will prove" if he didn't actually have the proof.
Why wouldnt he..
He thought he could
He did
It's also in the SC judgement.. From the SC judgement..
Gonçalo Amaral who says it, while the narrator at the beginning of the program: "In the next 50 minutes I will prove that the child was not abducted and died in the holiday apartment in Praia da Luz" (N° 41).
-
Why wouldnt he..
He thought he could
He did
It's also in the SC judgement.. From the SC judgement..
Gonçalo Amaral who says it, while the narrator at the beginning of the program: "In the next 50 minutes I will prove that the child was not abducted and died in the holiday apartment in Praia da Luz" (N° 41).
That is still a translation. Did he approve the subtitles? Were the subtitles official? Or are you saying Amaral was narrating that in English?
-
That is still a translation. Did he approve the subtitles?
I think your argument is ridiculous and absurd
-
I think your argument is ridiculous and absurd
Didn't he also say his book available on the internet wasn't a good translation?
-
That is still a translation. Did he approve the subtitles? Were the subtitles official? Or are you saying Amaral was narrating that in English?
Prove to me the subtitles were approved by Amaral and I'll agree with you.
Were the subtitles put there by Amaral's agent?
-
Didn't he also say his book available on the internet wasn't a good translation?
I'm not interested in discussing such a ridiculous idea... It's in the, SC judgement as well.
-
I'm not interested in discussing such a ridiculous idea... It's in the, SC judgement as well.
I have read that he said his book wasn't translated properly. OK he might have preferred actual book sales as opposed to free downloads, so it was a marketing ploy to get more sales.
But how do we know if the video was translated 100%?
-
I have read that he said his book wasn't translated properly. OK he might have preferred actual book sales as opposed to free downloads, so it was a marketing ploy to get more sales.
But how do we know if the video was translated 100%?
As I said... My last word to you on the subject... I'm not interested in discussing such a ridiculous idea
-
As I said... My last word to you on the subject... I'm not interested in discussing such a ridiculous idea
OK let's all wait for the ECHR to make its ruling then and say no more till then.
-
OK let's all wait for the ECHR to make its ruling then and say no more till then.
I will say what I like on the subject... You can do as you wish
-
I will say what I like on the subject...
Well so you will and I'll remind you of the translation issue if necessary.
-
Well so you will and I'll remind you of the translation issue if necessary.
And I will simply ignore you... That's life
-
I have read that he said his book wasn't translated properly. OK he might have preferred actual book sales as opposed to free downloads, so it was a marketing ploy to get more sales.
But how do we know if the video was translated 100%?
I know the translations of the judgements have been criticised by some. Who knows who translated the book and the DVD. Funny how mistranslation is only suspected when it's the McCann's and their friend's statements are discussed.
-
I know the translations of the judgements have been criticised by some. Who knows who translated the book and the DVD. Funny how mistranslation is only suspected when it's the McCann's and their friend's statements are discussed.
That's what I thought too. Now the argument is reverse.
-
And I will simply ignore you... That's life
I like that &^&*%
-
I know the translations of the judgements have been criticised by some. Who knows who translated the book and the DVD. Funny how mistranslation is only suspected when it's the McCann's and their friend's statements are discussed.
The difference is we have amaral live on TV speaking and as, I understand at least two independent translations. ..both of which are identical
One coming from the SC judgement where we have, the original Portuguese .
Yet the mccanns, statement which we have no record of... You insist on being accurate.
If you now wish to question the, accuracy of the translated SC ruling... I'm not sure just where that leaves us
-
On page 4 of the official SC judgement it gives amarals statement in Portuguese... He uses the words..
Vou provar.... Which translates, as... I will prove...
So unless the SC also got it wrong... The version I have given is correct
-
On page 4 of the official SC judgement it gives amarals statement in Portuguese... He uses the words..
Vou provar.... Which translates, as... I will prove...
So unless the SC also got it wrong... The version I have given is correct
Or I will show.
-
Or I will show.
Or I will demonstrate.
-
I think comprovar would be used in the situations you both describe but.... Even when we have the original language document to translate the meaning is not exact yey you both take the non verbatim twice translated McCann statements, as gospel... Quite laughable imo
-
Or I will show.
Could you provide a cite
-
Or I will demonstrate.
Could you provide a cite.. As I said I think comprovar means to demonstrate or to show
-
I think comprovar would be used in the situations you both describe but.... Even when we have the original language document to translate the meaning is not exact yey you both take the non verbatim twice translated McCann statements, as gospel... Quite laughable imo
So the non verbatim twice translated statements are unreliable as regards the claim of an abduction,glad thats cleared up.
-
So the non verbatim twice translated statements are unreliable as regards the claim of an abduction,glad thats cleared up.
The mccanns have claimed, abduction in English... As have the SY and the pj considered it possible
-
The mccanns have claimed, abduction in English... As have the SY and the pj considered it possible
We'll be on the norty step afor long.
Out of interest how long do you see the echr dragging its feet on this one,it seems as if if you look at recent cases these were brought up long ago.
-
We'll be on the norty step afor long.
Out of interest how long do you see the echr dragging its feet on this one,it seems as if if you look at recent cases these were brought up long ago.
I've no idea... It's not on my list if priorities... I will be interested to see what happens...
-
I've no idea... It's not on my list if priorities... I will be interested to see what happens...
Just looked at one case first lodged in 2009,only just settled last month.
I'd venture nothing is going to happen any time soon.
-
Just looked at one case first lodged in 2009,only just settled last month.
I'd venture nothing is going to happen any time soon.
As I've said before I think it's keeping amaral quiet
-
As I've said before I think it's keeping amaral quiet
The book and video are still available for all to see,so he's no need to be any thing but silent,unlike some maybe the case doesn't consume his time.
-
The book and video are still available for all to see,so he's no need to be any thing but silent,unlike some maybe the case doesn't consume his time.
I don't think he's responsible for the book and video now... I still think the echr case hangs over him
-
I don't think he's responsible for the book and video now... I still think the echr case hangs over him
I'm not so sure. I think there's a very definite bell curve of interest, which only waxes and wanes with anniversaries and the like. And that interest curve had its zenith a few years ago. Any mileage / revenue thereafter is likely to be limited.
-
On page 4 of the official SC judgement it gives amarals statement in Portuguese... He uses the words..
Vou provar.... Which translates, as... I will prove...
So unless the SC also got it wrong... The version I have given is correct
Which suggests the judges saw it and thought nothing of it. It's just you banging on about it then.
-
Which suggests the judges saw it and thought nothing of it. It's just you banging on about it then.
I think it's quite significant that amaral claimed to be able to prove maddie died in the apartment and her death was covered up... The fact that the judges thought nothing of it points to their poor judgement in my opinion.
-
I think it's quite significant that amaral claimed to be able to prove maddie died in the apartment and her death was covered up... The fact that the judges thought nothing if it points to their poor judgement in my opinion
Beyond their remit.
-
Beyond their remit.
Not really... It was claimed amaral was only repeating what was in the files... He obviously wasnt
-
I think it's quite significant that amaral claimed to be able to prove maddie died in the apartment and her death was covered up... The fact that the judges thought nothing if it points to their poor judgement in my opinion
Did the McCanns complain about it in their submissions to the Portuguese courts? If not, then it won't be considered by the ECHR.
-
Or I will demonstrate.
Where did you find that? My search translated "vou provar" as "I will prove".
-
Did the McCanns complain about it in their submissions to the Portuguese courts? If not, then it won't be considered by the ECHR.
In your opinion.. In mine it could
-
Did the McCanns complain about it in their submissions to the Portuguese courts? If not, then it won't be considered by the ECHR.
I don't think that is true.
And can we have a few more IMOs, please. I don't want to have to start deleting comments because of the lack of.
-
Where did you find that? My search translated "vou provar" as "I will prove".
I think it's called trying to muddy the waters... Unsuccessfully imo.. Neither gunit nor slart managed a cite.
In fact both demonstrate and show can also mean prove depending in the context
-
In your opinion.. In mine it could
If a violation hasn't been brought to the attention of the Portuguese courts then it can't be included in an application to the ECHR.
Violations of articles of the Convention must be pleaded substantively at first instance, with specific reference to the applicable Convention Articles. It is appropriate to plead the same Convention arguments on appeal
and to the highest court, or any other constitutional court or court of cassation which acts
as a court of last resort. The principle of subsidiarity requires that national courts must have
the opportunity to consider and redress the alleged violation(s).
https://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/Guide_ECHR_lawyers_ENG.pdf
-
If a violation hasn't been brought to the attention of the Portuguese courts then it can't be included in an application to the ECHR.
Violations of articles of the Convention must be pleaded substantively at first instance, with specific reference to the applicable Convention Articles. It is appropriate to plead the same Convention arguments on appeal
and to the highest court, or any other constitutional court or court of cassation which acts
as a court of last resort. The principle of subsidiarity requires that national courts must have
the opportunity to consider and redress the alleged violation(s).
https://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/Guide_ECHR_lawyers_ENG.pdf
The violation is article 8...in this case, defamation. Anything that defames is therefore relevant.
If you look at some past cases you will understand
-
The violation is article 8...in this case, defamation. Anything that defames is therefore relevant.
If you look at some past cases you will understand
Only the claims made to the Portuguese courts (and rejected or ignored by them) will be considered, not 'anything'.
-
Only the claims made to the Portuguese courts (and rejected or ignored by them) will be considered, not 'anything'.
I didn't say "anything"... You are quoting your opinion but I think your knowledge is lacking. I have looked at previous cases where they look at what statements amounted to defamation... On what evidence were these claims made... Were the claims made balanced.
For that reason all the claims made by amaral will be very relevant imo.
-
I didn't say "anything"... You are quoting your opinion but I think your knowledge is lacking. I have looked at previous cases where they look at what statements amounted to defamation... On what evidence were these claims made... Were the claims made balanced.
For that reason all the claims made by amaral will be very relevant imo.
The claims made by the McCanns to the Portuguese courts are what the ECHR will look at.
-
The claims made by the McCanns to the Portuguese courts are what the ECHR will look at.
It is certainly interesting question. I just wish I had the brain power you two have to deal with it. Keep going and sort it please.
-
Could you provide a cite
https://context.reverso.net/translation/portuguese-english/eu+vou+provar-te (https://context.reverso.net/translation/portuguese-english/eu+vou+provar-te)
-
https://context.reverso.net/translation/portuguese-english/eu+vou+provar-te (https://context.reverso.net/translation/portuguese-english/eu+vou+provar-te)
Depends what is meant by show.. Can you define what they mean by show..
Imo you are playing semantics.
If I'm asked to show that the square on the hypotenuse equals the sum of the squares on the other two sides.. Then show equals prove.
-
Depends what is meant by show.. Can you define what they mean by show..
Imo you are playing semantics.
If I'm asked to show that the square on the hypotenuse equals the sum of the squares on the other two sides.. Then show equals prove.
Would it make a difference to the case if it was argued it meant "show" rather than "prove"?
-
The claims made by the McCanns to the Portuguese courts are what the ECHR will look at.
I really don't think you understand the process at all... It reminds me of ..the only thing worse than lack of knowledge is the assumption of knowledge... Which imo describes your post to a tee.
Are you really not aware you are stating your opinion not fact
And I'm not sure what.. If anything... You are basing your opinion on
-
It is certainly interesting question. I just wish I had the brain power you two have to deal with it. Keep going and sort it please.
Nothing will be resolved until the ECHR announce their decision.
-
Would it make a difference to the case if it was argued it meant "show" rather than "prove"?
The word provar in this instance has been translated by at least two sceptics as prove.. And as I've pointed out... Show.. and demonstrate in this context also means prove
I really can hear the barrel being scraped
-
Nothing will be resolved until the ECHR announce their decision.
I agree.. I'm just giving my opinion... It's gunit who seems to think she knows exactly what's going to be accepted
-
I really don't think you understand the process at all... It reminds me of ..the only thing worse than lack of knowledge is the assumption of knowledge... Which imo describes your post to a tee.
Are you really not aware you are stating your opinion not fact
And I'm not sure what.. If anything... You are basing your opinion on
And you are getting very annoyingly close to making ad hom arguments.
-
The word provar in this instance has been translated by at least two sceptics as prove.. And as I've pointed out... Show.. and demonstrate in this context also means prove
I really can hear the barrel being scraped
You didn't answer my question.
I asked "Would it make a difference to the case if it was argued it meant "show" rather than "prove"?".
-
You didn't answer my question.
I asked "Would it make a difference to the case if it was argued it meant "show" rather than "prove"?".
Of course it wouldn't.
Its just argument for the sake of it - IMO
-
And you are getting very annoyingly close to making ad hom arguments.
Gunit has, repeatedly stated, as opinion as fact... As Eleanor has pointed out
-
You didn't answer my question.
I asked "Would it make a difference to the case if it was argued it meant "show" rather than "prove"?".
As long as you describe my posts, as, annoying I won't answer your question..
-
As long as you describe my posts, as, annoying I won't answer your question..
Even more annoyance.
-
Even more annoyance.
Could you address gunits continued statement of opinion as fact
-
Even more annoyance.
I'm happy to debate in a civilised manner but opinion and fact need to be seperated
-
Could you address gunits continued statement of opinion as fact
I don't know what is opinion and what is fact in this debate. As I said it is beyond me, but I still find it interesting.
Just be careful not to word your arguments in a way that belittles another's intelligence, as I'll call them "ad hom" and take action.
-
I don't know what is opinion and what is fact in this debate. As I said it is beyond me, but I still find it interesting.
Just be careful not to word your arguments in a way that belittles another's intelligence, as I'll call them "ad hom" and take action.
It's not my problem if a poster believes their opinion is fact... When it isnt
-
Important points about applying to the ECHR.
Are there any procedures that must be followed beforehand in the national courts?
" Yes. You must have used all the remedies in the State concerned
that could provide redress for the situation you are complaining
about (usually this will mean an application to the appropriate
court, followed by an appeal, where applicable, and even a
further appeal to a higher court such as the supreme court or
constitutional court, if there is one)...
The Court does not act as a court of appeal in relation to national
courts; it does not rehear cases, it cannot quash, vary or revise
their decisions.
https://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/Questions_Answers_ENG.pdf
" It is not enough merely to make use of these remedies. In so
doing, you must also have actually raised your complaints (the
substance of the Convention violations you are alleging).
-
Important points about applying to the ECHR.
Are there any procedures that must be followed beforehand in the national courts?
" Yes. You must have used all the remedies in the State concerned
that could provide redress for the situation you are complaining
about (usually this will mean an application to the appropriate
court, followed by an appeal, where applicable, and even a
further appeal to a higher court such as the supreme court or
constitutional court, if there is one)...
The Court does not act as a court of appeal in relation to national
courts; it does not rehear cases, it cannot quash, vary or revise
their decisions.
https://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/Questions_Answers_ENG.pdf
" It is not enough merely to make use of these remedies. In so
doing, you must also have actually raised your complaints (the
substance of the Convention violations you are alleging).
The mccanns have raised the issue Re right to reputation and also presumption of innocence... Re the book and video
Any statement made in the book or video is therefore relevant
-
The mccanns have raised the issue Re right to reputation and also presumption of innocence... Re the book and video
Any statement made in the book or video is therefore relevant
The judge of the first instance said;
It is important to keep in mind that it is not illegal to sustain the thesis according to which Madeleine McCann died in the apartment of Praia da Luz and that her body was concealed by her parents. The scope of the lawsuit is the affirmation, by the defendant Goncalo Amaral, in the book, the interview and the documentary, in the concrete terms that he used, of the same thesis.
page 48 http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=6307.0
-
The judge of the first instance said;
It is important to keep in mind that it is not illegal to sustain the thesis according to which Madeleine McCann died in the apartment of Praia da Luz and that her body was concealed by her parents. The scope of the lawsuit is the affirmation, by the defendant Goncalo Amaral, in the book, the interview and the documentary, in the concrete terms that he used, of the same thesis.
page 48 http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=6307.0
Why is, the judge talking of illegalty if this is, a, civil trial
I'm not sure what you are, trying to prove/show/demonstrate with this, post.. It doesn't really address, anything
-
Why is, the judge talking of illegalty if this is, a, civil trial
I'm not sure what you are, trying to prove/show/demonstrate with this, post.. It doesn't really address, anything
She didn't rule against Amaral because of what he said, she ruled against him because of who he was.
-
She didn't rule against Amaral because of what he said, she ruled against him because of who he was.
If it was a crime for Amaral to have published a book and a video about a case he had inside information on, it should have been the state of Portugal to take action against Amaral. It seems weird that the judge in the first instance finds against Amaral for an issue that doesn't seem to be raised by the McCanns.
Did the the McCanns raise this issue? (Duty of reserve) http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=7993.0
-
I don't know what is opinion and what is fact in this debate. As I said it is beyond me, but I still find it interesting.
Just be careful not to word your arguments in a way that belittles another's intelligence, as I'll call them "ad hom" and take action.
this is the post you object to...
1...I really don't think you understand the process at all...
2....It reminds me of ..the only thing worse than lack of knowledge is the assumption of knowledge... Which imo describes your post to a tee.
Are you really not aware you are stating your opinion not fact
And I'm not sure what.. If anything... You are basing your opinion on
point ! is nothing to do with intelligence but the understanding of the facts. Gunit is staing facts which I diont think are true and I think its acceptable to conclude she doesnt understand the principles involved.
Point 2 is criticising the post not the poster so is not ad hom
I cannot help but respond when gunit continually posts her opinion as fact...Eleanor has already warned her about this so its not just me
-
this is the post you object to...
1...I really don't think you understand the process at all...
2....It reminds me of ..the only thing worse than lack of knowledge is the assumption of knowledge... Which imo describes your post to a tee.
Are you really not aware you are stating your opinion not fact
And I'm not sure what.. If anything... You are basing your opinion on
point ! is nothing to do with intelligence but the understanding of the facts. Gunit is staing facts which I diont think are true and I think its acceptable to conclude she doesnt understand the principles involved.
Point 2 is criticising the post not the poster so is not ad hom
I cannot help but respond when gunit continually posts her opinion as fact...Eleanor has already warned her about this so its not just me
When you state that a poster is wrong, or has a ridiculous stance, then, by default, you are stating that your take on it is correct, ergo, you're stating opinion as fact. Surely you can see the irony of your accusation.
You 'cannot help but respond' because you think your opinion is fact. And as for Eleanor's support - I'd expect nothing less from the most biased of the moderation team - watch the last sentence disappear....
-
When you state that a poster is wrong, or has a ridiculous stance, then, by default, you are stating that your take on it is correct, ergo, you're stating opinion as fact. Surely you can see the irony of your accusation.
You 'cannot help but respond' because you think your opinion is fact. And as for Eleanor's support - I'd expect nothing less from the most biased of the moderation team - watch the last sentence disappear....
You missed the “I don’t think are true” bit in Davel’s post.
-
When you state that a poster is wrong, or has a ridiculous stance, then, by default, you are stating that your take on it is correct, ergo, you're stating opinion as fact. Surely you can see the irony of your accusation.
You 'cannot help but respond' because you think your opinion is fact. And as for Eleanor's support - I'd expect nothing less from the most biased of the moderation team - watch the last sentence disappear....
Come come now, surely that honour lies elsewhere
-
You missed the “I don’t think are true” bit in Davel’s post.
I didn't, that's the point. The 'I'm right, you're wrong' position is default 'my opinion is more valid than yours'.
-
I didn't, that's the point. The 'I'm right, you're wrong' position is default 'my opinion is more valid than yours'.
No, he’s stating that in his opinion he is right, not stating a fact. IMO.
-
When you state that a poster is wrong, or has a ridiculous stance, then, by default, you are stating that your take on it is correct, ergo, you're stating opinion as fact. Surely you can see the irony of your accusation.
You 'cannot help but respond' because you think your opinion is fact. And as for Eleanor's support - I'd expect nothing less from the most biased of the moderation team - watch the last sentence disappear....
If you look at my post it says I think you are wrong... And I do.
All my posts, are qualified by imo.
None of us know 100% how the ECHR will pan out. I give my opinion and make it clear it's my opinion.
Gunit seems to think her view is factual... That's what I'm pointing out
-
I didn't, that's the point. The 'I'm right, you're wrong' position is default 'my opinion is more valid than yours'.
You are, wrong again... The value of opinion is not whi makes it but on what evidence it is based... This us something I've posted before. My opinion Re the ECHR is based in cases I've quoted. Posters can look at the links I've given and make their own mind up
-
If you look at my post it says I think you are wrong... And I do.
All my posts, are qualified by imo.
None of us know 100% how the ECHR will pan out. I give my opinion and make it clear it's my opinion.
Gunit seems to think her view is factual... That's what I'm pointing out
We'll hopefully find out some time in 2022.
-
You are, wrong again... The value of opinion is not whi makes it but on what evidence it is based... This us something I've posted before. My opinion Re the ECHR is based in cases I've quoted. Posters can look at the links I've given and make their own mind up
They have made their own mind up; they think you're wrong.
-
They have made their own mind up; they think you're wrong.
And I don't have the slightest problem with that as long as it's stated as opinion... Not fact... As gunit has done. I don't understand how you fail to see such an obviously simple point
-
We'll hopefully find out some time in 2022.
I agree that 2022 is a reasonable estimate... But who knows
-
If it was a crime for Amaral to have published a book and a video about a case he had inside information on, it should have been the state of Portugal to take action against Amaral. It seems weird that the judge in the first instance finds against Amaral for an issue that doesn't seem to be raised by the McCanns.
Did the the McCanns raise this issue? (Duty of reserve) http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=7993.0
A) The claimants, concerning the pertinence of the trial, invoke that their constitutionally guaranteed rights are superior to the eventual freedom of expression that the defendants may benefit of, that the book and remaining pieces gathered in this suit are not information and aim at transforming the theory of their involvement in the death of the claimant Madeleine and the concealment of her body in the “result “ of the criminal investigation, and that Goncalo Amaral violated his duties as a State servant to which he was constrained being an inspector of the Judicial Police. (page 7)
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=6307.0
I wonder what happened to this threat?
Madeleine McCann's parents will lodge a complaint with Portuguese police alleging that former detective Goncalo Amaral broke his country's strict judicial secrecy laws, the couple's lawyer said.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/madeleinemccann/6995024/Madeleine-McCanns-parents-to-lodge-complaint-against-Portuguese-police.html
-
A) The claimants, concerning the pertinence of the trial, invoke that their constitutionally guaranteed rights are superior to the eventual freedom of expression that the defendants may benefit of, that the book and remaining pieces gathered in this suit are not information and aim at transforming the theory of their involvement in the death of the claimant Madeleine and the concealment of her body in the “result “ of the criminal investigation, and that Goncalo Amaral violated his duties as a State servant to which he was constrained being an inspector of the Judicial Police. (page 7)
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=6307.0
I wonder what happened to this threat?
Madeleine McCann's parents will lodge a complaint with Portuguese police alleging that former detective Goncalo Amaral broke his country's strict judicial secrecy laws, the couple's lawyer said.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/madeleinemccann/6995024/Madeleine-McCanns-parents-to-lodge-complaint-against-Portuguese-police.html
Again I'm not sure, what the point if your post is... The mccanns have raised their right to reputation and right to the presumption of innocence. They raised these specifically to the SC.... So I can't see any way their right to appeal to the ECHR is not valid
-
Again I'm not sure, what the point if your post is... The mccanns have raised their right to reputation and right to the presumption of innocence. They raised these specifically to the SC.... So I can't see any way their right to appeal to the ECHR is not valid
So how was their right to the presumption of innocence damaged? Was it because Amaral breached the duty of reserve, or was it because the archiving dispatch was equal to an acquittal? They used both arguments and the courts rejected both.
-
And I don't have the slightest problem with that as long as it's stated as opinion... Not fact... As gunit has done. I don't understand how you fail to see such an obviously simple point
I can't understand how you fail to see my point, etc, etc, blah. You've been banging the 'I'm Always Right' drum for 11 years.
You've been put back in your box by G-Unit, get over it.
-
I can't understand how you fail to see my point, etc, etc, blah. You've been banging the 'I'm Always Right' drum for 11 years.
You've been put back in your box by G-Unit, get over it.
In Your Opinion, which I don't agree with.
-
So how was their right to the presumption of innocence damaged? Was it because Amaral breached the duty of reserve, or was it because the archiving dispatch was equal to an acquittal? They used both arguments and the courts rejected both.
It's up to the, ECHR to decide those points.. Not us
-
No, he’s stating that in his opinion he is right, not stating a fact. IMO.
Interesting little debate, so what do I think?
As soon as you say "I think I'm right" it seems like you are presenting your opinion as a fact. But I must admit even I would fall into that trap, so I'm going to let it go.
-
Again I'm not sure, what the point if your post is... The mccanns have raised their right to reputation and right to the presumption of innocence. They raised these specifically to the SC.... So I can't see any way their right to appeal to the ECHR is not valid
G-unit was showing that the McCanns were aware of the "Duty of Reserve".
-
G-unit was showing that the McCanns were aware of the "Duty of Reserve".
So any Police Officer can say what he likes without proof? There's interesting.
-
Interesting little debate, so what do I think?
As soon as you say "I think I'm right" it seems like you are presenting your opinion as a fact. But I must admit even I would fall into that trap, so I'm going to let it go.
If I say I think I'm right then I'm stating opinion. This, was, established some time ago as I remember
-
So any Police Officer can say what he likes without proof? There's interesting.
I don't know about just any police officer but a retired ex-police officer can it seems.
-
G-unit was showing that the McCanns were aware of the "Duty of Reserve".
The ECHR only deal with human rights... I don't see that the duty of reserve will come into it. The duty of reserve may have been relavent in the Portuguese court....but I dont think has, any relevance, at the, ECHR
-
I don't know about just any police officer but a retired ex-police officer can it seems.
He has been allowed to by the Portuguese justice system... Whether the ECHR agree us, another matter
-
If I say I think I'm right then I'm stating opinion. This, was, established some time ago as I remember
If you are right, your view can't be improved on so it becomes equivalent to a fact.
-
Let's get back on topic please.
-
If you are right, your view can't be improved on so it becomes equivalent to a fact.
If I'm right it is a fact. .but I haven't claimed to be right... Why the persistent argument
-
The ECHR only deal with human rights... I don't see that the duty of reserve will come into it. The duty of reserve may have been relavent in the Portuguese court....but I dont think has, any relevance, at the, ECHR
You are forgetting that the applicants must give the national courts the opportunity to deal with any violations of the Articles. The McCanns gave the courts two examples of how, in their opinion, Article 6 had been violated. The courts disagreed.
In their application to the ECHR, the McCanns must use the same examples otherwise they won't have given the national courts the opportunity to redress the alleged violation. IMO.
-
If I'm right it is a fact. .but I haven't claimed to be right... Why the persistent argument
But if you're not sure that you're right, how do you know the other person isn't either?
-
You are forgetting that the applicants must give the national courts the opportunity to deal with any violations of the Articles. The McCanns gave the courts two examples of how, in their opinion, Article 6 had been violated. The courts disagreed.
In their application to the ECHR, the McCanns must use the same examples otherwise they won't have given the national courts the opportunity to redress the alleged violation. IMO.
I'm not forgetting anything.. Again you are, stating your opinion as fact.
Are you suggEsting the mccanns case is inadmissible because they failed to give the domestic court the chance to remedy their greivance?
-
But if you're not sure that you're right, how do you know the other person isn't either?
They may be...the case may be thrown out... Who knows... I just happen to think it won't be based in reading past cases
-
I'm not forgetting anything.. Again you are, stating your opinion as fact.
Are you suggEsting the mccanns case is inadmissible because they failed to give the domestic court the chance to remedy their greivance?
That is a condition of applying to the ECHR;
The principle of subsidiarity requires that national courts must have the opportunity to
prevent, detect and redress the alleged violation(s) themselves. If they fail to provide
redress, an application may be made to the Court.
https://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/Q_A_Lawyers_Guide_ECHR_ENG.pdf
In addition;
Violations of Articles of the Convention must be pleaded substantively at first instance, with specific
reference to the applicable Convention Articles. It is essential to plead the same Convention arguments on appeal, then to the highest national court, or any other constitutional court or court of cassation which acts as a court of last resort.
https://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/Q_A_Lawyers_Guide_ECHR_ENG.pdf
-
That is a condition of applying to the ECHR;
The principle of subsidiarity requires that national courts must have the opportunity to
prevent, detect and redress the alleged violation(s) themselves. If they fail to provide
redress, an application may be made to the Court.
https://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/Q_A_Lawyers_Guide_ECHR_ENG.pdf
In addition;
Violations of Articles of the Convention must be pleaded substantively at first instance, with specific
reference to the applicable Convention Articles. It is essential to plead the same Convention arguments on appeal, then to the highest national court, or any other constitutional court or court of cassation which acts as a court of last resort.
https://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/Q_A_Lawyers_Guide_ECHR_ENG.pdf
So is, that a, yes... A no... Or a don't know
-
That is a condition of applying to the ECHR;
The principle of subsidiarity requires that national courts must have the opportunity to
prevent, detect and redress the alleged violation(s) themselves. If they fail to provide
redress, an application may be made to the Court.
https://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/Q_A_Lawyers_Guide_ECHR_ENG.pdf
In addition;
Violations of Articles of the Convention must be pleaded substantively at first instance, with specific
reference to the applicable Convention Articles. It is essential to plead the same Convention arguments on appeal, then to the highest national court, or any other constitutional court or court of cassation which acts as a court of last resort.
https://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/Q_A_Lawyers_Guide_ECHR_ENG.pdf
Afaiac... And I would think afa the Mccanns lawyers, are concerned... All this has already been done
-
Your opinion almost exclusively aligns with Davel.
Your opinion rarely aligns with a 'sceptic', irrespective of the topic.
Of course it does. Who do you think I am?
But I am awfully glad that you said "Almost" and "Rarely". Thanks at least for that.
-
Let's get back on topic please.
I should have a word with Carly, if I was you. I can't be arsed.
-
So how was their right to the presumption of innocence damaged? Was it because Amaral breached the duty of reserve, or was it because the archiving dispatch was equal to an acquittal? They used both arguments and the courts rejected both.
Their right to the presumption of innocence was damaged because they had the right to be presumed innocent.
The SC did not allow them this right and allowed amaral to imply they were, guilty... Same as the case Re Finland at the ECHR
-
If I'm right it is a fact. .but I haven't claimed to be right... Why the persistent argument
Why the persistent argument! It was you who wants the mods to pull G-unit up for presenting opinion as fact. Who determines what is fact?
-
Their right to the presumption of innocence was damaged because they had the right to be presumed innocent.
The SC did not allow them this right and allowed amaral to imply they were, guilty... Same as the case Re Finland at the ECHR
It was. at the time covered in his book, the theory held and followed by the investigation. Why shouldn't he write about it? They spread their theory world-wide.
-
Why the persistent argument! It was you who wants the mods to pull G-unit up for presenting opinion as fact. Who determines what is fact?
It was, Eleanor who asked gunit to stop quoting opinion as fact...I merely repeated it... It's quite, easy to seperate the two
-
It was. at the time covered in his book, the theory held and followed by the investigation. Why shouldn't he write about it? They spread their theory world-wide.
He shouldn't write about it if it is defamatory... It's a simple as that... The mccanns theory is not defamatory.
The official investigation never claimed it could prove maddie was not abducted and died in the apartment....and her death was covered up and an abduction simulated
-
Their right to the presumption of innocence was damaged because they had the right to be presumed innocent.
The SC did not allow them this right and allowed amaral to imply they were, guilty... Same as the case Re Finland at the ECHR
As the police build up evidence against a certain person there must come a time when the police present their evidence to the prosecutor and the prosecutor decides whether there is enough evidence to proceed with the case.
There must be points in time where the people involved in the process think the perpetrator is liable. Do they keep on presuming the alleged perpetrator is presumed innocent?
Hence the duty of reserve. These people should say nothing to affect the public's perception that the accused is anything other than innocent until proven guilty.
How can the SC toss aside the need for "the duty of reserve" is a mystery to me.
-
It was, Eleanor who asked gunit to stop quoting opinion as fact...I merely repeated it... It's quite, easy to seperate the two
If that is the case you should be badgering Eleanor to moderate G-unit not me. All I asked was for you to be careful not to present "ad hom" arguments.
-
As the police build up evidence against a certain person there must come a time when the police present their evidence to the prosecutor and the prosecutor decides whether there is enough evidence to proceed with the case.
There must be points in time where the people involved in the process think the perpetrator is liable. Do they keep on presuming the alleged perpetrator is presumed innocent?
Hence the duty of reserve. These people should say nothing to affect the public's perception that the accused is anything other than innocent until proven guilty.
How can the SC toss aside the need for "the duty of reserve" is a mystery to me.
it isnt just the duty of reserve...the mccanns have the right to the presumption of innocence.
almeidas reprt ...which amaral relied upon contains factual errors regarding evidence.
-
If that is the case you should be badgering Eleanor to moderate G-unit not me. All I asked was for you to be careful not to present "ad hom" arguments.
I didnt present any ad hom argument as I pointed out. Eleanor...it seems..in her own words...cant be arsed. I merely pointed out that you were badgering me when two other posters were clearly breaking forum rules
-
it isnt just the duty of reserve...the mccanns have the right to the presumption of innocence.
almeidas reprt ...which amaral relied upon contains factual errors regarding evidence.
As I've said several times now who determines fact?
-
As I've said several times now who determines fact?
are you saying you cannot diferentiate between what is fact and what is opinion...that really is basic..
try this
maddie disappered
maddie was abducted
which one is fact and which is opinion
-
I didnt present any ad hom argument as I pointed out. Eleanor...it seems..in her own words...cant be arsed. I merely pointed out that you were badgering me when two other posters were clearly breaking forum rules
Remember - I am the moderator. IMO you were using ad hom arguments. End of story.
-
Remember - I am the moderator. IMO you were using ad hom arguments. End of story.
in your opinion...yet even when i say I THINK something happened you think im stating fact
you might be the moderator but you have had decisions reversed by John. I will keep a copy of all my posts and refer to john if I disagree with your decision...John is end of story not you.
-
in your opinion...yet even when i say I THINK something happened you think im stating fact
you might be the moderator but you have had decisions reversed by John. I will keep a copy of all my posts and refer to john if I disagree with your decision...John is end of story not you.
You won't need to if you become conscious of not using ad hom arguments.
-
You won't need to if you become conscious of not using ad hom arguments.
I havent used any ad hom argumnets
-
I havent used any ad hom arguments
Keep up the good work then.
-
He shouldn't write about it if it is defamatory... It's a simple as that... The mccanns theory is not defamatory.
The official investigation never claimed it could prove maddie was not abducted and died in the apartment....and her death was covered up and an abduction simulated
Did the McCann's lawyer raise that point in the courts?
-
Did the McCann's lawyer raise that point in the courts?
From what I have read they don't need to raise specific points.. Just that by allowing amaral to make his claims un his book and documentary they were denied the POI and his claims affected their right to reputation
-
If that is the case you should be badgering Eleanor to moderate G-unit not me. All I asked was for you to be careful not to present "ad hom" arguments.
I try really hard not to Moderate anyone. You could try the same thing.
-
I try really hard not to Moderate anyone. You could try the same thing.
Largely it is the same, I try to teach the posters more than reprimand them.
-
Largely it is the same, I try to teach the posters more than reprimand them.
In that case you have an over inflated opinion of your ability.
-
In that case you have an over inflated opinion of your ability.
No way. Davel is coming right slowly. I see he is trying hard to spell correctly and the use way less ellipses.
-
From what I have read they don't need to raise specific points.. Just that by allowing amaral to make his claims un his book and documentary they were denied the POI and his claims affected their right to reputation
From what I have read those who accuse must prove the truth of their accusations.
-
From what I have read those who accuse must prove the truth of their accusations.
Oh the irony!
-
From what I have read those who accuse must prove the truth of their accusations.
In the case vs Finland I have quoted...... The accused did not have to orive their innocence... They were entitled to thr presumption of innocence
-
In the case vs Finland I have quoted...... The accused did not have to orive their innocence... They were entitled to thr presumption of innocence
Which is after all a basic human right. Whether or not the McCanns have been denied that right by the Portuguese courts of appeal is for the European Court to determine.
There would appear to be a strenuous defence of the interpretation made of, in particular, the McCann right to the presumption of innocence as laid down by the highest Portuguese appeal court by some posters here.
Certainly the McCann right to present a case in defence of their human rights has been fought in spirit by what I find is the resentful tone of many of the posts on this thread. Which I find extraordinary given that we are a forum that could be expected to stand for the rights of the individual v the abuse of States.
Congratulations Davel on your meticulous research giving examples of defence of the principals outlined by the cases which have been resolved by the European Court in the favour of the rights of individuals.
-
In the case vs Finland I have quoted...... The accused did not have to orive their innocence... They were entitled to thr presumption of innocence
The victims didn't bring the case in the civil court as the McCannns did, it was a criminal case;;
the public prosecutor brought charges for aggravated defamation against the first applicant, the editor-in-chief of the applicant company, and the second applicant, the journalist. The baseball team pursued a compensation claim against all the applicants, which was joined to the criminal charges
https://lovdata.no/static/EMDN/emd-2006-045130.pdf
The onus in that case was on the public prosecutor to prove the case, not on those who were harmed.
-
The victims didn't bring the case in the civil court as the McCannns did, it was a criminal case;;
the public prosecutor brought charges for aggravated defamation against the first applicant, the editor-in-chief of the applicant company, and the second applicant, the journalist. The baseball team pursued a compensation claim against all the applicants, which was joined to the criminal charges
https://lovdata.no/static/EMDN/emd-2006-045130.pdf
The onus in that case was on the public prosecutor to prove the case, not on those who were harmed.
We're quite fortunate to have at least one forum member who has an accurate grasp of law and due process.
Excellent research and explanation, as usual.
-
We're quite fortunate to have at least one forum member who has an accurate grasp of law and due process.
Excellent research and explanation, as usual.
not biased either .......... 8**8:/:
-
Which is after all a basic human right. Whether or not the McCanns have been denied that right by the Portuguese courts of appeal is for the European Court to determine.
There would appear to be a strenuous defence of the interpretation made of, in particular, the McCann right to the presumption of innocence as laid down by the highest Portuguese appeal court by some posters here.
Certainly the McCann right to present a case in defence of their human rights has been fought in spirit by what I find is the resentful tone of many of the posts on this thread. Which I find extraordinary given that we are a forum that could be expected to stand for the rights of the individual v the abuse of States.
Congratulations Davel on your meticulous research giving examples of defence of the principals outlined by the cases which have been resolved by the European Court in the favour of the rights of individuals.
There are two sides in this case. You see the rights of the McCanns as paramount, but are ignoring the rights of another individual; Goncalo Amaral.
-
There are two sides in this case. You see the rights of the McCanns as paramount, but are ignoring the rights of another individual; Goncalo Amaral.
exactly g unit why are the mcanns so inportant to some?? it was their actions that lead to all this nearly 13 years ago
-
There are two sides in this case. You see the rights of the McCanns as paramount, but are ignoring the rights of another individual; Goncalo Amaral.
What right does he have to base a whole second career on smearing the parents of a missing child and trying to convince anyone who will listen thst she died in that apartment?
-
What right does he have to base a whole second career on smearing the parents of a missing child and trying to convince anyone who will listen thst she died in that apartment?
He seems to have had the right to inform the public of the details and conclusions of the investigation up to 10th September 2007.
-
There are two sides in this case. You see the rights of the McCanns as paramount, but are ignoring the rights of another individual; Goncalo Amaral.
We are, well aware there are two rights to balance... It's what the, SC did as I've said many times .The question is did they get the balance right... Based on other cars from the ECHR. I would say they didnt
-
There are two sides in this case. You see the rights of the McCanns as paramount, but are ignoring the rights of another individual; Goncalo Amaral.
I believe the McCanns are contesting the abrogation of their human rights by the Portuguese legal system: in my opinion Amaral is very small fry indeed in that process.
-
I believe the McCanns are contesting the abrogation of their human rights by the Portuguese legal system: in my opinion Amaral is very small fry indeed in that process.
Who defines what is a "human right"? Is the presumption of innocence a human right? Yes it is.
"Universal Declaration of Human Rights"
https://www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-rights/index.html
"Article 11.
(1) Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law in a public trial at which he has had all the guarantees necessary for his defence.
(2) No one shall be held guilty of any penal offence on account of any act or omission which did not constitute a penal offence, under national or international law, at the time when it was committed. Nor shall a heavier penalty be imposed than the one that was applicable at the time the penal offence was committed."
I think it odd to argue that this human right did not apply to the McCanns as they were not charged with a penal offence at the time.
-
Who defines what is a "human right"? Is the presumption of innocence a human right? Yes it is.
"Universal Declaration of Human Rights"
https://www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-rights/index.html
"Article 11.
(1) Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law in a public trial at which he has had all the guarantees necessary for his defence.
(2) No one shall be held guilty of any penal offence on account of any act or omission which did not constitute a penal offence, under national or international law, at the time when it was committed. Nor shall a heavier penalty be imposed than the one that was applicable at the time the penal offence was committed."
I think it odd to argue that this human right did not apply to the McCanns as they were not charged with a penal offence at the time.
My opinion is that the Portuguese appeal court judges' ruling exceeded their remit leaving the McCanns an open goal allowing an appeal to the European Court and giving their legal team an exceptionally strong case to argue on their behalf that their human rights have been violated.
-
My opinion is that the Portuguese appeal court judges' ruling exceeded their remit leaving the McCanns an open goal allowing an appeal to the European Court and giving their legal team an exceptionally strong case to argue on their behalf that their human rights have been violated.
Even if they weren't charged there is Article 12 that backs the McCanns.
"Article 12.
No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks."
What about free speech?
"Article 19.
Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers."
-
I believe the McCanns are contesting the abrogation of their human rights by the Portuguese legal system: in my opinion Amaral is very small fry indeed in that process.
According to Davel Amaral is very important in the process.
-
Who defines what is a "human right"? Is the presumption of innocence a human right? Yes it is.
"Universal Declaration of Human Rights"
https://www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-rights/index.html
"Article 11.
(1) Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law in a public trial at which he has had all the guarantees necessary for his defence.
(2) No one shall be held guilty of any penal offence on account of any act or omission which did not constitute a penal offence, under national or international law, at the time when it was committed. Nor shall a heavier penalty be imposed than the one that was applicable at the time the penal offence was committed."
I think it odd to argue that this human right did not apply to the McCanns as they were not charged with a penal offence at the time.
Nobody said they weren't entitled to the presumption of innocence. What the courts did say was that it wasn't interfered with by Amaral, as the McCanns claimed.
-
According to Davel Amaral is very important in the process.
Amaral himself isn't but what he said is
-
Nobody said they weren't entitled to the presumption of innocence. What the courts did say was that it wasn't interfered with by Amaral, as the McCanns claimed.
That's not what the SC said according to this sunmarry from the, PJGA blogspot..
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.
So it seems the SC said they were not entitled to the POI because the investigation hadn't found them innocent... Which is a bizarre thing to say
-
That's not what the SC said according to this sunmarry from the, PJGA blogspot..
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.
So it seems the SC said they were not entitled to the POI because the investigation hadn't found them innocent... Which is a bizarre thing to say
As I've pointed out, the McCanns had to prove their case. Their lawyer argued that the archiving dispatch was equal to an acquittal, which is wrong. It is her claim that the judges were answering.
-
As I've pointed out, the McCanns had to prove their case. Their lawyer argued that the archiving dispatch was equal to an acquittal, which is wrong. It is her claim that the judges were answering.
Doesn't matter what they were, answering or what the court expected them to prove. The ECHR case us not an examination of the Portuguese hearings.
It is simply a case which will examine whether the mccanns human rights were violated. It will.. Imo.. Look at the balance between article 10 and 8... And if course the mccanns right to the POI
-
He seems to have had the right to inform the public of the details and conclusions of the investigation up to 10th September 2007.
"Seemed to"? What right did he have to continue promoting his conclusions (videos, interviews) after he was kicked off the case and after the case was shelved owing to the lack of evidence against the McCanns?
-
"Seemed to"? What right did he have to continue promoting his conclusions (videos, interviews) after he was kicked off the case and after the case was shelved owing to the lack of evidence against the McCanns?
Every right, it would appear. Who would be in the position to prevent him?
-
Every right, it would appear. Who would be in the position to prevent him?
Well, in this country it would be the laws of the land. In Portugal it seems anything goes, as long as it's not a judge or member of the judicial system being impugned.
-
Well, in this country it would be the laws of the land. In Portugal it seems anything goes, as long as it's not a judge or member of the judicial system being impugned.
The UK law doesn't apply. Chill and accept that fact.
-
Doesn't matter what they were, answering or what the court expected them to prove. The ECHR case us not an examination of the Portuguese hearings.
It is simply a case which will examine whether the mccanns human rights were violated. It will.. Imo.. Look at the balance between article 10 and 8... And if course the mccanns right to the POI
There's nothing simple about it. If the correct procedures haven't been followed it won't be accepted.
-
There's nothing simple about it. If the correct procedures haven't been followed it won't be accepted.
Simplicity is in the, eye of the beholder... Of course it won't be accepted if correct procedures haven't been followed .
The procedures are relatively simple from what I can see and we have no reason to believe they haven't. If it had been thrown out then as I understand a ruling would hace been made and ut would be searchable
-
The UK law doesn't apply. Chill and accept that fact.
But European law does
-
Doesn't matter what they were, answering or what the court expected them to prove. The ECHR case us not an examination of the Portuguese hearings.
It is simply a case which will examine whether the mccanns human rights were violated. It will.. Imo.. Look at the balance between article 10 and 8... And if course the mccanns right to the POI
Are the articles you refer to the same as on this website https://www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-rights/index.html?
"Article 8.
Everyone has the right to an effective remedy by the competent national tribunals for acts violating the fundamental rights granted him by the constitution or by law.
"Article 10.
Everyone is entitled in full equality to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, in the determination of his rights and obligations and of any criminal charge against him.
-
Are the articles you refer to the same as on this website https://www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-rights/index.html?
"Article 8.
Everyone has the right to an effective remedy by the competent national tribunals for acts violating the fundamental rights granted him by the constitution or by law.
"Article 10.
Everyone is entitled in full equality to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, in the determination of his rights and obligations and of any criminal charge against him.
http://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/FS_Reputation_ENG.pdf
-
According to Davel Amaral is very important in the process.
Without what in my opinion is Amaral's vindictive vendetta by means of book; interviews on tv and in the press; his documentary using proven seriously flawed argument against Kate and Gerry McCann there would have been no court case of any kind ultimately resulting in appeal to the ECHR.
If you like ... Amaral could be considered to be the catalyst and the whole raison d'être for much of the unnecessary controversy associated with Madeleine's disappearance and the naked hatred many feel free to express regarding any positive action taken on her behalf.
However he is in my opinion an irrelevance except as a footnote as far as the conduct of the Portuguese courts and judiciary is concerned ... I think it is the result of their handiwork, not Amaral's, which will be the main focus in any forthcoming European Court of Human Rights case.
-
http://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/FS_Reputation_ENG.pdf
Don't you mean https://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/Convention_ENG.pdf "European Convention of Human Rights"
OK these may have a different list of articles compared to the UN Convention of Human Rights.
-
Don't you mean https://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/Convention_ENG.pdf "European Convention of Human Rights"
OK these may have a different list of articles compared to the UN Convention of Human Rights.
I know, exactly what I mean.... The link I posted is explicitly Re balancing articles 8 and 10..
Which is precisely what the SC in Portugal attempted to do
-
I know, exactly what I mean.... The link I posted is explicitly Re balancing articles 8 and 10..
Which is precisely what the SC in Portugal attempted to do
Well I asked you a question "Are the articles you refer to the same as on this website https://www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-rights/index.html?" One would think your response would help to answer that question.
-
Well I asked you a question "Are the articles you refer to the same as on this website https://www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-rights/index.html?" One would think your response would help to answer that question.
I think the fact that I was helpful enough to repost the link I was referring to would realise that your link was not the one I had found my information from.
As I said... My link is to an ECHR set of cases dealing with exactly the question the SC was trying to answer... Exactly what the, ECHR will be considering... Imo... In the McCann case
-
I think the fact that I was helpful enough to repost the link I was referring to would realise that your link was not the one I had found my information from.
As I said... My link is to an ECHR set of cases dealing with exactly the question the SC was trying to answer... Exactly what the, ECHR will be considering... Imo... In the McCann case
OK No problems, so that whole paper was just about those two articles!
-
OK No problems, so that whole paper was just about those two articles!
Absolutely... That's, why the link is so relevant. If you read the cases it's possible to understand just how the ECHR reaches, a decision between 10 and, 8.....and that's, what I base my opinion on.
37 pages on the right to freedom of speech vs the right to reputation
-
The UK law doesn't apply. Chill and accept that fact.
I’m totally chilled and long ago accepted that Portugal’s laws and their application seem somewhat Kafkaesque in nature.
-
I’m totally chilled and long ago accepted that Portugal’s laws and their application seem somewhat Kafkaesque in nature.
Whereas our current constitutional crisis in the UK is Pythonesque.
-
Whereas our current constitutional crisis in the UK is Pythonesque.
never mind the police in portugal...the prime minister was jailed for 9 months
-
Whereas our current constitutional crisis in the UK is Pythonesque.
And the present government reminiscent of the National Socialists circa 1933
-
And the present government reminiscent of the National Socialists circa 1933
Now you're talking. I have an unhealthy interest in this period of European history, reaching back to Bismarck.
-
Topic please.
-
"ARTICLE 10
Freedom of expression
1. Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right
shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart
information and ideas without interference by public authority
and regardless of frontiers. This Article shall not prevent States
from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema
enterprises.
2. The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it
duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities,
conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and
are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national
security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention
of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for
the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing
the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for
maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary."
ARTICLE 8
Right to respect for private and family life
1. Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family
life, his home and his correspondence.
2. There shall be no interference by a public authority with the
exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the
law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of
national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the
country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection
of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms
of others."
Text from echr.coe.int/Documents/Convention_ENG.pdf
Thanks Davel.
-
Whereas our current constitutional crisis in the UK is Pythonesque.
with a ' molto piccolo' touch of Benny Hill? (I cannot believe this was classed as comedy"ARTICLE 10
Freedom of expression
1. Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right
shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart
information and ideas without interference by public authority
and regardless of frontiers. This Article shall not prevent States
from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema
enterprises.
2. The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it
duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities,
conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and
are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national
security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention
of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for
the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing
the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for
maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary."
Enbolden which part applies to McCanns rights?
ARTICLE 8
Right to respect for private and family life
1. Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family
life, his home and his correspondence.
2. There shall be no interference by a public authority with the
exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the
law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of
national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the
country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection
of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms
of others."
Text from echr.coe.int/Documents/Convention_ENG.pdf
Thanks Davel.
)
enbolden, which part refers to the McCanns. They publicised their events in advance, did photoshoots, campaigned for money, under the claim of an unsubstanciated story about an abductor/s,. When some one else came along with a different theory, they got all upset and turned to the law. the law was used and the conclusion was made very clear.
-
with a ' molto piccolo' touch of Benny Hill? (I cannot believe this was classed as comedy)
enbolden, which part refers to the McCanns. They publicised their events in advance, did photoshoots, campaigned for money, under the claim of an unsubstanciated story about an abductor/s,. When some one else came along with a different theory, they got all upset and turned to the law. the law was used and the conclusion was made very clear.
If you read some of the cases you will understand
-
If you read some of the cases you will understand
I understand perfectly well. I understand that all cases are judged on merit and quality of argument.(they are all different) back to you. In a CIVIL case what parts embolden do you identify as relevent to the McCANNS claims?
-
I understand perfectly well. I understand that all cases are judged on merit and quality of argument.(they are all different) back to you. In a CIVIL case what parts embolden do you identify as relevent to the McCANNS claims?
There is far more to article 8 than the small portion you have quoted. It's all been discussed on this thread... Have, a, read back
-
There is far more to article 8 than the small portion you have quoted. It's all been discussed on this thread... Have, a, read back
It only a mere 228 pages ATM.
-
It only a mere 228 pages ATM.
Precisely... It's all there and pointless going over the same points again and again
-
Precisely... It's all there and pointless going over the same points again and again
Yes, I am aware of those articles along with others.
There is no point in trying to beat a dead horse into submission; by posting those two paragraphs to make a point, then renaging when asked to identify which parts are relevent to the McCann case; you shy away.
Here are the facts which some die hard supporters may not want to read:
ECHR will NOT offer compensation to McCanns
.........Will NOT sent Amaral to prison
.........will NOT declare the McCanns innocent of anything - as no charges of a crime have been submitted
.........will NOT order the destruction of Portugual and a firing squad for the investigating PJ.
Something the UK press want to start rethinking their headlines.
-
Yes, I am aware of those articles along with others.
There is no point in trying to beat a dead horse into submission; by posting those two paragraphs to make a point, then renaging when asked to identify which parts are relevent to the McCann case; you shy away.
Here are the facts which some die hard supporters may not want to read:
ECHR will NOT offer compensation to McCanns
.........Will NOT sent Amaral to prison
.........will NOT declare the McCanns innocent of anything - as no charges of a crime have been submitted
.........will NOT order the destruction of Portugual and a firing squad for the investigating PJ.
Something the UK press want to start rethinking their headlines.
The fact is... From what you have posted.. Is that even after the echr case has been discussed for two years you still don't seem to realise the significance of article 8 to the McCann case
-
The fact is... From what you have posted.. Is that even after the echr case has been discussed for two years you still don't seem to realise the significance of article 8 to the McCann case
Yes, that is correct i don't see the significance in their case. I would go as far as to say, based on this, they really don't have one.
-
Yes, that is correct i don't see the significance in their case. I would go as far as to say, based on this, they really don't have one.
Article 8 deals with defamation...one case I've quoted also deals with the presumption of innocence.
Based on the cites I've given I would say they have a very, very strong case
-
Article 8 deals with defamation...one case I've quoted also deals with the presumption of innocence.
Based on the cites I've given I would say they have a very, very strong case
I am sorry Davel, what you have quoted does NOT apply to the SC and the McCanns claims.
No one defamed them- a book was written describing a theory based on a police investigation to which the McCanns were suspects at that time.
As they were NOT charged with anything why would they be presumed innocent? There is nothing to suggest they were treated badly or illegally.
-
I am sorry Davel, what you have quoted does NOT apply to the SC and the McCanns claims.
No one defamed them- a book was written describing a theory based on a police investigation to which the McCanns were suspects at that time.
As they were NOT charged with anything why would they be presumed innocent? There is nothing to suggest they were treated badly or illegally.
You don't seem to have a clue... Read the SC judgement
You don't have to be charged to be entitled to the presumption of innocence... Again I quoted an ECHR case showing this.
-
The latest about THAT case from the Sun - https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/9941816/madeleine-mccann-kate-gerry-brexit-uncertainty-delay-court-battle-amaral-cop/amp/
Despite the headline, there is no explanation of the role of Brexit in this saga.
The overall tone of the McCanns and their mouthpieces sounds despondent - IMO
-
The latest about THAT case from the Sun - https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/9941816/madeleine-mccann-kate-gerry-brexit-uncertainty-delay-court-battle-amaral-cop/amp/
Despite the headline, there is no explanation of the role of Brexit in this saga.
The overall tone of the McCanns and their mouthpieces sounds despondent - IMO
So it's not been declared admissible yet, it's just an application. Entirely false is the suggestion that the ECHR can award damages and/or compensation to Amaral. He isn't involved in the case at all.
-
So it's not been declared admissible yet, it's just an application. Entirely false is the suggestion that the ECHR can award damages and/or compensation to Amaral. He isn't involved in the case at all.
From the Sun article -
Of Maddie’s parents appeal a spokesperson said: “It is impossible to speculate on how long it will take the court to examine this application.
“It varies depending on many factors and the court takes into account the importance and urgency of the issues.
“But for now it’s just one of almost 57,000 applications pending – more than a fifth of them from Russians.
“The case is under consideration and no timeframe has been fixed as to the examination of its admissibility.”
-
From the Sun article -
Of Maddie’s parents appeal a spokesperson said: “It is impossible to speculate on how long it will take the court to examine this application.
“It varies depending on many factors and the court takes into account the importance and urgency of the issues.
“But for now it’s just one of almost 57,000 applications pending – more than a fifth of them from Russians.
“The case is under consideration and no timeframe has been fixed as to the examination of its admissibility.”
If importance and urgency are the criteria then it will never reach the top of the list imo.
-
"In March it was revealed that Kate and Gerry had already forked out £24,000 in legal fees to the ‘tormentor’ ex cop with a further £5,500 still due."
Didn't know that. Must have missed that announcement
-
"In March it was revealed that Kate and Gerry had already forked out £24,000 in legal fees to the ‘tormentor’ ex cop with a further £5,500 still due."
Didn't know that. Must have missed that announcement
I remember seeing that, and thinking "is that all?" I thought they were going to be bankrupted by the legal action, or rather that seemed to be the hope of some.
-
"In March it was revealed that Kate and Gerry had already forked out £24,000 in legal fees to the ‘tormentor’ ex cop with a further £5,500 still due."
Didn't know that. Must have missed that announcement
Is that all?
-
"In March it was revealed that Kate and Gerry had already forked out £24,000 in legal fees to the ‘tormentor’ ex cop with a further £5,500 still due."
Didn't know that. Must have missed that announcement
23rd March
The Sun on Sunday has seen court files showing they have had to pay him £24,000 — and now they are about to be told to cough up another £5,500...
The extra £5,500 is to cover further costs being run up by his lawyers defending their final appeal to the European Court of Human Rights.
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/8705813/maddie-mccann-kate-gerry-libel-bill-goncalo-amaral/
Maybe they did have to pay the £24k, but the reason given for the £5.5k is ridiculous.
-
Is that all?
SNAP.
-
The claim of the fund being wiped out sounds a gross exaggeration to me.
Perhaps deliberately so to garner sympathy from a gullible public.
-
I remember seeing that, and thinking "is that all?" I thought they were going to be bankrupted by the legal action, or rather that seemed to be the hope of some.
A rumour circulated by.....the Sun in 2018. They seem to have forgotten it later;
Parents Kate and Gerry are fighting to avoid paying £750,000 to the ex-detective who shamefully claimed they were responsible for her death.
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/7281872/madeline-mcann-fund-750k-case/
-
what about the other fellas' costs? The video people and the publishers?
-
If they went through each of the Courts as Amaral, then I guess their costs would be similar.
-
If they went through each of the Courts as Amaral, then I guess their costs would be similar.
Plus loss of sales while the ban was in force.
-
Plus loss of sales while the ban was in force.
IMO if the court in the first instance made an error it must be the court who should cough up.
-
Plus loss of sales while the ban was in force.
And yet no reports of them having to shell out tens of thousands to anyone else, I wonder why not.
-
Selective reporting, perhaps 8(0(*
-
The latest about THAT case from the Sun - https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/9941816/madeleine-mccann-kate-gerry-brexit-uncertainty-delay-court-battle-amaral-cop/amp/
Despite the headline, there is no explanation of the role of Brexit in this saga.
The overall tone of the McCanns and their mouthpieces sounds despondent - IMO
Oh Jass don't you get it? Brexit will cause them such pain so please stop the Brexit now and save our daughter is what that message is about. As if they are so bloody important and their 'missing' daughter is a national tradgedy we should cancel brexit.
Oh my. they link and jump on every band wagon going IMO
The Sun has always been creative with the truth- thruth doesn't always sell papers.
-
Oh Jass don't you get it? Brexit will cause them such pain so please stop the Brexit now and save our daughter is what that message is about. As if they are so bloody important and their 'missing' daughter is a national tradgedy we should cancel brexit.
Oh my. they link and jump on every band wagon going IMO
The Sun has always been creative with the truth- thruth doesn't always sell papers.
The Sun is a disgrace imo.
-
Selective reporting, perhaps 8(0(*
To what end?
-
The Sun is a disgrace imo.
For some reason they did a piece on Ben Stokes family.
-
For some reason they did a piece on Ben Stokes family.
That backfired on them.
-
For some reason they did a piece on Ben Stokes family.
As Ben Stokes chose to be in the public eye he should just learn to suck it up when the media report on stuff he’d rather wasn’t reported? Isn’t that the sceptic argument wrt to the McCanns?
-
As Ben Stokes chose to be in the public eye he should just learn to suck it up when the media report on stuff he’d rather wasn’t reported? Isn’t that the sceptic argument wrt to the McCanns?
Ben Stokes is in the newspapers because of his job.
-
Ben Stokes is in the newspapers because of his job.
That makes the intrusion into his family's tragedy acceptable?
-
That makes the intrusion into his family's tragedy acceptable?
When he has a good day at cricket we keep getting reminded he was born in New Zealand. No mention of where he was born when he is dismissed for a low score.
-
Ben Stokes is in the newspapers because of his job.
So?
-
Ben was doing his job. His family had nothing to do with his work therefore, they were dragged into what was a painful time for the family and not in the public interest- he hits a ball with a bat.
Just like it is not in the public interest if celebrities/movie stars/sports people are gay/trans/lesbian (unless the sport gender specific i.e womens tennis. javlin etc)
The McCanns courted the media, they used is shamelessly to put up a defence.
-
Just had a look nothing happening,the oldest being dealt with this week is from 2006,using that as a bench mark,come back in 2031,oh the tension.
-
Just had a look nothing happening,the oldest being dealt with this week is from 2006,using that as a bench mark,come back in 2031,oh the tension.
All the good it will do anyhow. Portugal will just tear it up- the EU is losing its clout!
-
Its not even known if its admissible yet according to this.
A spokesman for the European Court of Human Rights said: “Before the end of the year there will be a preliminary examination by the court regarding the admissibility of the application.’’
https://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/latest-news/madeleine-mccann-parents-taking-legal-21424013
As if.
A source close to the UK police probe into Madeleine’s disappearance said that could fuel 'resentment’.
Soon be time for the will they won't they fund the investigation further.(Home office)
-
Its not even known if its admissible yet according to this.
A spokesman for the European Court of Human Rights said: “Before the end of the year there will be a preliminary examination by the court regarding the admissibility of the application.’’
https://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/latest-news/madeleine-mccann-parents-taking-legal-21424013
As if.
A source close to the UK police probe into Madeleine’s disappearance said that could fuel 'resentment’.
Soon be time for the will they won't they fund the investigation further.(Home office)
12 million squid squandered by SY, with nothing to show for it except the elimination of a sighting the McCanns don't want eliminating.
I'm sure we can all think of much better things to blow 12 million squids on. Like snake oil or London Bridge.
-
Its not even known if its admissible yet according to this.
A spokesman for the European Court of Human Rights said: “Before the end of the year there will be a preliminary examination by the court regarding the admissibility of the application.’’
https://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/latest-news/madeleine-mccann-parents-taking-legal-21424013
As if.
A source close to the UK police probe into Madeleine’s disappearance said that could fuel 'resentment’.
Soon be time for the will they won't they fund the investigation further.(Home office)
So it hasn't even reached the admissibility test stage yet, let alone being presented for a judgement.
Potentially years to run before a result it would seem.
-
So it hasn't even reached the admissibility test stage yet, let alone being presented for a judgement.
Potentially years to run before a result it would seem.
If Ever!
as there is now Brexit -I believe many other nations will join us and leave the EU which means defunct EU Court.
Boy that would hurt... would they get a refund?
-
If Ever!
as there is now Brexit -I believe many other nations will join us and leave the EU which means defunct EU Court.
Boy that would hurt... would they get a refund?
It's the ECHR court not the EU court.... Several sceptics seem to have made, the, same mistake
-
If Ever!
as there is now Brexit -I believe many other nations will join us and leave the EU which means defunct EU Court.
Boy that would hurt... would they get a refund?
You don't know very much do you. ECHR has nothing to do with The EU or Brexit.
-
You don't know very much do you. ECHR has nothing to do with The EU or Brexit.
Some one forgot to tell the McCanns then.
'EXASPERATED' Madeleine McCann’s parents fear Brexit uncertainty is delaying Euro court battle to silence shamed conspiracy cop
Family spokesperson Clarence Mitchell said last night: “They are exasperated by this and want to draw a line under it all.”
A close pal of the couple added: “It just drags on and on and causes them even more anguish.
“It could be several years or more before they get an outcome. It’s indefinite.
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/9941816/madeleine-mccann-kate-gerry-brexit-uncertainty-delay-court-battle-amaral-cop/amp/
-
Some one forgot to tell the McCanns then.
'EXASPERATED' Madeleine McCann’s parents fear Brexit uncertainty is delaying Euro court battle to silence shamed conspiracy cop
Family spokesperson Clarence Mitchell said last night: “They are exasperated by this and want to draw a line under it all.”
A close pal of the couple added: “It just drags on and on and causes them even more anguish.
“It could be several years or more before they get an outcome. It’s indefinite.
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/9941816/madeleine-mccann-kate-gerry-brexit-uncertainty-delay-court-battle-amaral-cop/amp/
Still nothing to do with The EU or Brexit.
-
Some one forgot to tell the McCanns then.
'EXASPERATED' Madeleine McCann’s parents fear Brexit uncertainty is delaying Euro court battle to silence shamed conspiracy cop
Family spokesperson Clarence Mitchell said last night: “They are exasperated by this and want to draw a line under it all.”
A close pal of the couple added: “It just drags on and on and causes them even more anguish.
“It could be several years or more before they get an outcome. It’s indefinite.
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/9941816/madeleine-mccann-kate-gerry-brexit-uncertainty-delay-court-battle-amaral-cop/amp/
media non-story linking the McCanns to Brexit. Next!
-
Some one forgot to tell the McCanns then.
'EXASPERATED' Madeleine McCann’s parents fear Brexit uncertainty is delaying Euro court battle to silence shamed conspiracy cop
Family spokesperson Clarence Mitchell said last night: “They are exasperated by this and want to draw a line under it all.”
A close pal of the couple added: “It just drags on and on and causes them even more anguish.
“It could be several years or more before they get an outcome. It’s indefinite.
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/9941816/madeleine-mccann-kate-gerry-brexit-uncertainty-delay-court-battle-amaral-cop/amp/
So you believe an unnamed source, and an article in the Sun..
Mistaken seems to think the EU court is the same as the ECHR... anyone with any sense knows it isn't..
-
https://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/Stats_pending_2020_BIL.pdf
59800 cases outstanding @Jan 2020, of which over 24000 come from Russia & Turkey.
-
https://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/Stats_pending_2020_BIL.pdf
59800 cases outstanding @Jan 2020, of which over 24000 come from Russia & Turkey.
Russia and Turkey... Two founder members of the, EU Lol
-
https://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/Stats_pending_2020_BIL.pdf
59800 cases outstanding @Jan 2020, of which over 24000 come from Russia & Turkey.
'Number 12,216 Court number 4 please'. [Gerry looks down at his ticket, looks up and stares in to the middle distance]
-
https://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/Stats_pending_2020_BIL.pdf
59800 cases outstanding @Jan 2020, of which over 24000 come from Russia & Turkey.
Cases which have been allocated to a judicial formation. The McCann case hasn't even reached that stage yet.
-
Cases which have been allocated to a judicial formation. The McCann case hasn't even reached that stage yet.
The McCann case is pending, which is the same status as when the application was received at ECHR.
https://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/Stats_understanding_ENG.pdf
-
The McCann case is pending, which is the same status as when the application was received at ECHR.
https://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/Stats_understanding_ENG.pdf
Longest vanity project ever. An ill-fated, irrationally expensive, extravagant, indulgent, futile folly. A bitter, retarded, spiteful riposte. Nothing more. Get to the back of the queue and shut up.
-
Longest vanity project ever. An ill-fated, irrationally expensive, extravagant, indulgent, futile folly. A bitter, retarded, spiteful riposte. Nothing more. Get to the back of the queue and shut up.
You seem to be getting very upset. IMO its totally reasonable and necessary .i like this comment by a poster here..
If, by some chance, the ECHR finds that Portugal has breached the McCann's human rights they will have achieved more than if they had defeated Amaral. They will have discredited not just him, but his entire country.
i think your commnet...A bitter, retarded, spiteful riposte. ...describes your post very well...why so bitter
-
You seem to be getting very upset. IMO its totally reasonable and necessary .i like this comment by a poster here..
If, by some chance, the ECHR finds that Portugal has breached the McCann's human rights they will have achieved more than if they had defeated Amaral. They will have discredited not just him, but his entire country.
i think your commnet...A bitter, retarded, spiteful riposte. ...describes your post very well...why so bitter
I'm not bitter. If, in 2043, the McCann's strike a blow for humanity, then I'll concede your point.
I am retarded and spiteful though, the nurses were always saying that, amongst other things, as they pushed the metal tray of slop through the slot.
-
You seem to be getting very upset. IMO its totally reasonable and necessary .i like this comment by a poster here..
If, by some chance, the ECHR finds that Portugal has breached the McCann's human rights they will have achieved more than if they had defeated Amaral. They will have discredited not just him, but his entire country.
i think your commnet...A bitter, retarded, spiteful riposte. ...describes your post very well...why so bitter
I’d put the reason down to impotence. Ie: the complete absence of power to do anything whatsoever about the McCanns’ continued liberty to act as they please. It right pisses some people off, especially those who think they know it all.
-
I'm not bitter. If, in 2043, the McCann's strike a blow for humanity, then I'll concede your point.
I am retarded and spiteful though, the nurses were always saying that, amongst other things, as they pushed the metal tray of slop through the slot.
I think the action will be very interesting and agreee with the poster who I quoted. it will be heard eventually and will be well worth waiting for
-
I'm not bitter. If, in 2043, the McCann's strike a blow for humanity, then I'll concede your point.
I am retarded and spiteful though, the nurses were always saying that, amongst other things, as they pushed the metal tray of slop through the slot.
As you appear to have a degree of self knowledge perhaps you should strive to address some of the issues with which you are afflicted? Retardation there’s not much one can do admittedly, but spitefulness can be overcome if you try hard enough.
-
I’d put the reason down to impotence. Ie: the complete absence of power to do anything whatsoever about the McCanns’ continued liberty to act as they please. It right pisses some people off, especially those who think they know it all.
i totally agree. Thtas why sceptics hate the thought of an ECHR ruling. It raises the posibility of both Portugal and Amaral being totally discredited...as gunit has suggested
-
i totally agree. Thtas why sceptics hate the thought of an ECHR ruling. It raises the posibility of both Portugal and Amaral being totally discredited...as gunit has suggested
- I'm a 'sceptic'. They can rule what they like it 2052. I don't care.
The decision to proceed in the first place? In my opinion That's another matter. In my opinion It wasn't about 'continuing the search', in my opinion it was about ego, hence in my opinion, a misguided, expensive folly.
-
- I'm a 'sceptic'. They can rule what they like it 2052. I don't care.
The decision to proceed in the first place? In my opinion That's another matter. In my opinion It wasn't about 'continuing the search', in my opinion it was about ego, hence in my opinion, a misguided, expensive folly.
I think anyone who felt they had been wronged would sue and continue to the ECHR. Amaral said himself that if he lost....he would. The decision is perfectly rational and your posts typical sceptic bile...imo
-
I think anyone who felt they had been wronged would sue and continue to the ECHR. Amaral said himself that if he lost....he would. The decision is perfectly rational and your posts typical sceptic bile...imo
Interesting, this has been moderated, but the ad hom left it tact.
-
Interesting, this has been moderated, but the ad hom left it tact.
its acceptable to criticise posts ...but not the poster...i dont see that my post has been moderated
-
its acceptable to criticise posts ...but not the poster...i dont see that my post has been moderated
Depends who you are whether criticising the post is deemed criticising the poster, as has been ably demonstrated this morning.
-
The topic is ... McCanns appeal to the European Court of Human Rights ... please remember that when posting on this thread. Thank you.
-
Of course if the McCanns had decided not to go to the ECHR
no doubt there would have been just as much criticism and nastiness directed at that decision
-
The topic is ... McCanns appeal to the European Court of Human Rights ... please remember that when posting on this thread. Thank you.
I did, but that didn't seem to make any difference.
I maintain, irrespective of the result, of which I have no interest, the decision to pursue is folly and driven by misplaced hubris.
And who's paying? Aren't there a couple of invoices still outstanding? So perhaps it's also a questionable commercial venture too.
Disclaimer: All posts are for entertainment purposes only and are not to be taken literally. The views, information, or opinions expressed in posts are solely those of the individuals involved (The General) and do not necessarily represent those of the forum, the owner or any other entity. The General's content posted may be freely copied and used elsewhere as an example of literary excellence, or for others to use to deliver a slap down to third parties.
-
I did, but that didn't seem to make any difference.
I maintain, irrespective of the result, of which I have no interest, the decision to pursue is folly and driven by misplaced hubris.
And who's paying? Aren't there a couple of invoices still outstanding? So perhaps it's also a questionable commercial venture too.
Disclaimer: All posts are for entertainment purposes only and are not to be taken literally. The views, information, or opinions expressed in posts are solely those of the individuals involved (The General) and do not necessarily represent those of the forum, the owner or any other entity. The General's content posted may be freely copied and used elsewhere as an example of literary excellence, or for others to use to deliver a slap down to third parties.
You can maintain as much as you like... The problem is there's no impartial judge to decide who's right or wrong.
Afaiac.... The action to the ECHR is justified... Proportionate.. Necessary... Rational... And lots of other nice words
-
You can maintain as much as you like... The problem is there's no impartial judge to decide who's right or wrong.
Afaiac.... The action to the ECHR is justified... Proportionate.. Necessary... Rational... And lots of other nice words
It's just my opinion (as per the new disclaimer). I even believe they had no idea what they were signing up for, as it was meant to be a forgone conclusion and getting embroiled in a costly, epoch stretching appeal was never in the plan.
-
It's just my opinion (as per the new disclaimer). I even believe they had no idea what they were signing up for, as it was meant to be a forgone conclusion and getting embroiled in a costly, epoch stretching appeal was never in the plan.
Of course what happened wasn't in the plan... They expected justice and imo didn't get it
-
Of course what happened wasn't in the plan... They expected justice and imo didn't get it
They got due process though.
They expected a favourable result and maybe hoped that the shoe would be on the other foot, safe in the knowledge that Snr Amaral wouldn't be able to afford an appeal.
All will be revealed in June 2061, all being well.
-
Which is most important? A right to Libel someone without Proof, or a Right to Defend oneself? I do have some conception of what Portuguese Law is all about, probably influenced by the not so long ago Revolution, but it makes no sense to me at all. Portugal is a Third World Country and will remain so while the Old Guard are still in charge.
-
Which is most important? A right to Libel someone without Proof, or a Right to Defend oneself? I do have some conception of what Portuguese Law is all about, probably influenced by the not so long ago Revolution, but it makes no sense to me at all. Portugal is a Third World Country and will remain so while the Old Guard are still in charge.
Nicely put. Best left to the judges who do know what they're about. IMO
-
Nicely put. Best left to the judges who do know what they're about. IMO
That is the problem. Their attitude is skewed. Watch what happens if anyone Libels them, or anyone else with a vestige of power. Amaral was born and raised Pre Revolution which likely explains why he doesn't have a problem with Torture.
The ECHR will have a problem with this.
-
That is the problem. Their attitude is skewed. Watch what happens if anyone Libels them, or anyone else with a vestige of power. Amaral was born and raised Pre Revolution which likely explains why he doesn't have a problem with Torture.
The ECHR will have a problem with this.
Maybe, maybe not. What is certain is that their decision is final.
-
Nicely put. Best left to the judges who do know what they're about. IMO
Ah, but do they? Spot the difference.
https://www.portugalresident.com/former-mep-ana-gomes-faces-new-case-for-defamation/
https://www.theportugalnews.com/news/court-rejects-isabel-dos-santos-libel-case-against-ana-gomes/52738
-
Maybe, maybe not. What is certain is that their decision is final.
depends what you mean by final. IMO A judgement in the McCanns favour could well have repercussions for amaral
-
Ah, but do they? Spot the difference.
https://www.portugalresident.com/former-mep-ana-gomes-faces-new-case-for-defamation/
https://www.theportugalnews.com/news/court-rejects-isabel-dos-santos-libel-case-against-ana-gomes/52738
Thanks, Misty. So I am not wrong.
-
Thanks, Misty. So I am not wrong.
As you said, "it makes no sense to me at all".
-
As you said, "it makes no sense to me at all".
Can you make any real sense of this sort of corruption?
-
Can you make any real sense of this sort of corruption?
Yes, it's rife, global, ubiquitous and, therefore, inevitable. To make sense of it you need to come to terms with that fact and factor it in.
-
Yes, it's rife, global, ubiquitous and, therefore, inevitable. To make sense of it you need to come to terms with that fact and factor it in.
some of us already have...thats why the action to the ECHR was necessary...imo..
how else do you counter a judicial system which gives a suspended sentence for a violent rape...and rules that a mans right to beat his wife is ok because the bilble says so
-
Which is most important? A right to Libel someone without Proof, or a Right to Defend oneself? I do have some conception of what Portuguese Law is all about, probably influenced by the not so long ago Revolution, but it makes no sense to me at all. Portugal is a Third World Country and will remain so while the Old Guard are still in charge.
Cobblers, IMO. Mind you, I just happen to live here, so does it matter.
History. Revolution was in 1974. The Old Guard is dead.
-
Yes, it's rife, global, ubiquitous and, therefore, inevitable. To make sense of it you need to come to terms with that fact and factor it in.
I personally don't need to do anything and I certainly don't need to factor corruption into my life.
I don't know The McCanns or The Ciprianos, I am simply passing concerned about Miscarriages of Justice. And at my age I don't have a lot else to do with parts of my days.
I have been involved with this case since June 2007 and have often been stunned by the Portuguese approach to Justice.
Portugal is a beautiful country. I was there on holiday during the Second Revolution and involved in a couple of hairy incidents which didn't actually faze me, but did faze some of my travelling companions. I am very much a You and Whose Army sort of person having been a Bus Conductress out of Ibrox in my youth. The drunken football fans were all lovely to me, incidentally.
The ECHR will ultimately have to sort this with some sort of decision. Meanwhile Madeleine stays in The News.
-
Cobblers, IMO. Mind you, I just happen to live here, so does it matter.
History. Revolution was in 1974. The Old Guard is dead.
You can cobble away all you like. There were two Revolutions, by the way.
Amaral was born, raised and educated before any revolution happened and he is not yet sixty, so all of the Old Guard are not yet dead.
-
I personally don't need to do anything and I certainly don't need to factor corruption into my life.
I don't know The McCanns or The Ciprianos, I am simply passing concerned about Miscarriages of Justice. And at my age I don't have a lot else to do with parts of my days.
I have been involved with this case since June 2007 and have often been stunned by the Portuguese approach to Justice.
Portugal is a beautiful country. I was there on holiday during the Second Revolution and involved in a couple of hairy incidents which didn't actually faze me, but did faze some of my travelling companions. I am very much a You and Whose Army sort of person having been a Bus Conductress out of Ibrox in my youth. The drunken football fans were all lovely to me, incidentally.
The ECHR will ultimately have to sort this with some sort of decision. Meanwhile Madeleine stays in The News.
My comment wasn't aimed at you; the 'you' was my perception of collective wariness of the insidious and ubiquitous nature of corruption. The UK is no panacea when it comes to judicial systems. (A decent read is The Secret Barrister, for example).
-
My comment wasn't aimed at you; the 'you' was my perception of collective wariness of the insidious and ubiquitous nature of corruption. The UK is no panacea when it comes to judicial systems. (A decent read is The Secret Barrister, for example).
Thank you for the explanation. You can actually be half a decent Poster when you aren't trying to be a smart ass.
-
My comment wasn't aimed at you; the 'you' was my perception of collective wariness of the insidious and ubiquitous nature of corruption. The UK is no panacea when it comes to judicial systems. (A decent read is The Secret Barrister, for example).
Of course the UK is not immune to corruption.. But that's not an automatic get out card to dismiss valid criticism of the Portuguese system..
A man convicted of the violent rape of a stranger gets a suspended sentence
A judge defends violence towards a wife because the bible says it right
Would a person bruised as much as cipriano appearing in court be ignored.
There may well be much much more
-
Of course the UK is not immune to corruption.. But that's not an automatic get out card to dismiss valid criticism of the Portuguese system..
A man convicted of the violent rape of a stranger gets a suspended sentence
A judge defends violence towards a wife because the bible says it right
Would a person bruised as much as cipriano appearing in court be ignored.
There may well be much much more
I could provide a similar list from the UK from the last month.
As for the last question - I don't know. I have heard many 2nd hand accounts of police brutality, not dissimilar, but processes are different, bruises heal and police close ranks. Some of these miscreants tacitly 'agree' to these rules of engagement and gird their loins accordingly if apprehended. But that's inner city, granted.
I'm painting a bleak picture, not intentionally, but all of this is pretty routine, shocking as it may seem.
-
I could provide a similar list from the UK from the last month.
As for the last question - I don't know. I have heard many 2nd hand accounts of police brutality, not dissimilar, but processes are different, bruises heal and police close ranks. Some of these miscreants tacitly 'agree' to these rules of engagement and gird their loins accordingly if apprehended. But that's inner city, granted.
I'm painting a bleak picture, not intentionally, but all of this is pretty routine, shocking as it may seem.
Can you find me an example of a violent stranger rapist found guilty and given a suspended sentence ...a judge using the bible to justify domestic violence..
Im sure you can't. I'm happy to condemn any poor justice anywhere in the world including the uk
-
I could provide a similar list from the UK from the last month.
As for the last question - I don't know. I have heard many 2nd hand accounts of police brutality, not dissimilar, but processes are different, bruises heal and police close ranks. Some of these miscreants tacitly 'agree' to these rules of engagement and gird their loins accordingly if apprehended. But that's inner city, granted.
I'm painting a bleak picture, not intentionally, but all of this is pretty routine, shocking as it may seem.
beating a confession out of a woman is not routine.....they were not concerned about the bruises because they were confident hey could get away with it
-
Can you find me an example of a violent stranger rapist found guilty and given a suspended sentence ...a judge using the bible to justify domestic violence..
Im sure you can't. I'm happy to condemn any poor justice anywhere in the world including the uk
So let me get this straight, you want me to find commensurate 'injustices' of a specifically exact nature, to enable me to bolster my belief that injustice is rife? Why?
As for the 2nd of the two, it's not apples with apples, as we have a secular society and separation of church and state. Portugal was up until recently a Catholic state. As Eleanor alluded to earlier, old habits die hard and I'm sure there's some Octogenarian dinosaurs sitting and presiding in a parochial, inadequate manner as we speak.
-
So let me get this straight, you want me to find commensurate 'injustices' of a specifically exact nature, to enable me to bolster my belief that injustice is rife? Why?
As for the 2nd of the two, it's not apples with apples, as we have a secular society and separation of church and state. Portugal was up until recently a Catholic state. As Eleanor alluded to earlier, old habits die hard and I'm sure there's some Octogenarian dinosaurs sitting and presiding in a parochial, inadequate manner as we speak.
P0
I'm sure you couldnt finD anything close,... Try if you can
As for the octagenarian dinosaurs... That's the point I'm making
-
P0
I'm sure you couldnt finD anything close,... Try if you can
As for the octagenarian dinosaurs... That's the point I'm making
I agree (did I just say that). But these problems are by no means exclusive to Portugal.
-
I agree (did I just say that). But these problems are by no means exclusive to Portugal.
The problems ive posted are it seems and you can post nothing even remotely similar
-
The problems ive posted are it seems and you can post nothing even remotely similar
I don't get it, are you still challenging me? I've told you I'm not even going to look.
-
I don't get it, are you still challenging me? I've told you I'm not even going to look.
You claimed you could find some from the last month..
It's like being caught speeding at 90 in a 30 limit and claiming... Everyone speeds... As a defence
-
You claimed you could find some from the last month..
It's like being caught speeding at 90 in a 30 limit and claiming... Everyone speeds... As a defence
No....I'll use your go to line now......read it back! I said 'similar'.
Please refrain from misquoting your General.
-
No....I'll use your go to line now......read it back! I said 'similar'.
Please refrain from misquoting your General.
But you can't find anything similar as I said earlier
-
But you can't find anything similar as I said earlier
I haven't looked. It's can be quite problematic searching for 'unfair rape cases UK for Davel's battered women' whilst at work. All sorts of alarms go off in IT and nerds all stop playing Fortnite and spill Mountain Dew all over the shop.
Irrespective of that, CBA rule kicked in.
-
I haven't looked. It's can be quite problematic searching for 'unfair rape cases UK for Davel's battered women' whilst at work. All sorts of alarms go off in IT and nerds all stop playing Fortnite and spill Mountain Dew all over the shop.
Irrespective of that, CBA rule kicked in.
I'm anti injustice wherever it is... If there were cases like that in the UK I would have heard about them.
-
I did, but that didn't seem to make any difference.
I maintain, irrespective of the result, of which I have no interest, the decision to pursue is folly and driven by misplaced hubris.
And who's paying? Aren't there a couple of invoices still outstanding? So perhaps it's also a questionable commercial venture too.
Disclaimer: All posts are for entertainment purposes only and are not to be taken literally. The views, information, or opinions expressed in posts are solely those of the individuals involved (The General) and do not necessarily represent those of the forum, the owner or any other entity. The General's content posted may be freely copied and used elsewhere as an example of literary excellence, or for others to use to deliver a slap down to third parties.
Out of interest when is hubris ever well placed?
-
Out of interest when is hubris ever well placed?
On the Miscarriages of Justice Forum?
-
Out of interest when is hubris ever well placed?
In Aldi at opening time on a Thursday morning.
-
some of us already have...thats why the action to the ECHR was necessary...imo..
how else do you counter a judicial system which gives a suspended sentence for a violent rape...and rules that a mans right to beat his wife is ok because the bilble says so
Some judicial systems deny that rape even occured;
Judge who ruled woman was not raped as she 'didn't try stop it' should quit, MP says
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/judge-who-ruled-woman-not-21449659
-
Some judicial systems deny that rape even occured;
Judge who ruled woman was not raped as she 'didn't try stop it' should quit, MP says
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/judge-who-ruled-woman-not-21449659
sometimes it doesnt....there are no details of the case. Was the victim known or in a relationship with the suspect....we have very little information re the offence...fact. the sun reports...Police records indicated the mother reported several instances of domestic abuse and was forced to live in a refuge in 2016.
thats why in the portuguese case I point out the rape was a violent stranger rape ...the suspect was found guilty and given a suspended sentence...thats unheard of in any civilised society unless someone can show different
-
The title of the thread is McCanns appeal to the European Court of Human Rights.
Please stay within the topic
-
The title of the thread is McCanns appeal to the European Court of Human Rights.
Please stay within the topic
some posters seem to think that because the SC make a ruling then it must be correct. Its right to point out poor judgeemnts in portugues courts in light of that
-
some posters seem to think that because the SC make a ruling then it must be correct. Its right to point out poor judgeemnts in portugues courts in light of that
Criticising unrelated judgements of the Portuguese courts doesn't mean that the courts were wrong in the McCann case. Six senior judges were involved in the two appeals against the ruling of the one judge in the court of the first instance. I expect they were aware that the case was high profile and took great care to ensure their work was reliable.
-
Right or wrong the judgement stands and won't be reversed.
Dependent upon the ECHR ruling, if any, these findings will be taken into account in future judgments.
-
Criticising unrelated judgements of the Portuguese courts doesn't mean that the courts were wrong in the McCann case. Six senior judges were involved in the two appeals against the ruling of the one judge in the court of the first instance. I expect they were aware that the case was high profile and took great care to ensure their work was reliable.
You are aware the SC have got things wrong before.. It's quite possible.. Imo probable... They are wrong again
-
Right or wrong the judgement stands and won't be reversed.
Dependent upon the ECHR ruling, if any, these findings will be taken into account in future judgments.
If amaral repeats his claims... Even now... And the McCanns win at the ECHR... Amaral could then find himself back in court
-
That would mean the McCanns having to go before a Portuguese court with new evidence.
They may not have the appetite to do so
-
That would mean the McCanns having to go before a Portuguese court with new evidence.
They may not have the appetite to do so
Not with new evidence... With a ruling from the ECHR That the book is defamatory
-
You are aware the SC have got things wrong before.. It's quite possible.. Imo probable... They are wrong again
How many times have the Portuguese been ruled wrong by the ECHR? I'll tell you, it's three hundred and nine times between 1959 & 2015. For Art 8 they have been found wrong just 10 times and 20 times for article 10. Their biggest problem has been length of proceedings, for which they have been penalised 131 times.
Switzerland, with a slightly smaller population has been penalised 22 times over Art 8 and 16 times over Art 10.
https://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/Stats_violation_1959_2015_ENG.pdf
-
How many times have the Portuguese been ruled wrong by the ECHR? I'll tell you, it's three hundred and nine times between 1959 & 2015. For Art 8 they have been found wrong just 10 times and 20 times for article 10. Their biggest problem has been length of proceedings, for which they have been penalised 131 times.
Switzerland, with a slightly smaller population has been penalised 22 times over Art 8 and 16 times over Art 10.
https://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/Stats_violation_1959_2015_ENG.pdf
So you confirm that the highest court in the land can be wrong
Wrong 30 times Re articles 8 and 10....I wonder what that represents as a percentage of complaints under article 8 and 10
-
Criticising unrelated judgements of the Portuguese courts doesn't mean that the courts were wrong in the McCann case. Six senior judges were involved in the two appeals against the ruling of the one judge in the court of the first instance. I expect they were aware that the case was high profile and took great care to ensure their work was reliable.
according to the link you have provided there were 309 judgements involving portugal and of these only 13 were found to have no violation........that means portugals court was correct in only 4% of the judgements....that gives portugal one of the poorest records at teh ECHR......looks as though the SC need to take much more care
-
How many times have the Portuguese been ruled wrong by the ECHR? I'll tell you, it's three hundred and nine times between 1959 & 2015. For Art 8 they have been found wrong just 10 times and 20 times for article 10. Their biggest problem has been length of proceedings, for which they have been penalised 131 times.
Switzerland, with a slightly smaller population has been penalised 22 times over Art 8 and 16 times over Art 10.
https://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/Stats_violation_1959_2015_ENG.pdf
Youve managed to get just about everything wrong there so I will correct you and it makes interesting reading.
first 309 is not the amount of times proved wrong...its the total number of judgements
Of 309 judgeemnts only 13 found portugal to have made no violation...thats 13 out of 309...what a pathetic record portugal has...one of the worst in the table and less tahn Russia.
What that indicates is that portugals SC are routinely not administering ECHR law correctly...their record is appalling. Claims that the SC understand ECHR Law are therefore not backed by evidence...in gact the evidence shows the reverse.
-
Its still sat there in an in tray "Application requiring a decision".
-
Its still sat there in an in tray "Application requiring a decision".
And i think...based on the evidence...we can predict what the decision will be.
Its interesting that three years ago sceptics were saying teh Mcccanns would not go to the ECHR...that they had no grounds....realistically another year and there may well be some action
-
And i think...based on the evidence...we can predict what the decision will be.
Its interesting that three years ago sceptics were saying teh Mcccanns would not go to the ECHR...that they had no grounds....realistically another year and there may well be some action
Then again there may well not be.
-
And i think...based on the evidence...we can predict what the decision will be.
Its interesting that three years ago sceptics were saying teh Mcccanns would not go to the ECHR...that they had no grounds....realistically another year and there may well be some action
Leap of faith there,is it admissible?
-
Leap of faith there,is it admissible?
You just need to look at the admissibility criteria... It's not rocket science... It's quite simple. Its admissible
-
You just need to look at the admissibility criteria... It's not rocket science... It's quite simple. Its admissible
There's a real court,then there's the court of opinion,unless you've actually seen the application in all its glory you don't know.
-
Youve managed to get just about everything wrong there so I will correct you and it makes interesting reading.
first 309 is not the amount of times proved wrong...its the total number of judgements
Of 309 judgeemnts only 13 found portugal to have made no violation...thats 13 out of 309...what a pathetic record portugal has...one of the worst in the table and less tahn Russia.
What that indicates is that portugals SC are routinely not administering ECHR law correctly...their record is appalling. Claims that the SC understand ECHR Law are therefore not backed by evidence...in gact the evidence shows the reverse.
Only you could look at that table and decide that Portugal's record is 'one of the worst in the table'. @)(++(*
-
Only you could look at that table and decide that Portugal's record is 'one of the worst in the table'. @)(++(*
But it actually is.
-
Only you could look at that table and decide that Portugal's record is 'one of the worst in the table'. @)(++(*
Probably because I have a background in maths
309 judgements ..13 showing no violation... That's about 4 %...lower than Russia and one of the lowest in the table.
I've provided evidence to support my claim... you respond with a sniping response backed by no evidence ..
Where is your evidence to show I'm wrong
Portugal 4%...UK about 30%...you would have to be blind not to understand
-
There's a real court,then there's the court of opinion,unless you've actually seen the application in all its glory you don't know.
It's a matter of understanding the facts then it's easy to extrapolate ...it is for me at least.
Look at the SC judgement and the appeal against the SC judgement... Two points stand out... Defamation and the presumption of innocence... Both points the Echr can rule on
-
It's a matter of understanding the facts then it's easy to extrapolate ...it is for me at least.
Look at the SC judgement and the appeal against the SC judgement... Two points stand out... Defamation and the presumption of innocence... Both points the Echr can rule on
"Can" being the qualifier.
-
"Can" being the qualifier.
If it's admissible... Which it has to be... Imo... They have to rule on it
-
"Can" being the qualifier.
It either is or it isn't. "Can" doesn't come into it.
-
It either is or it isn't. "Can" doesn't come into it.
Nope,read what is written,Davel said they (echr) "can" adjudicate on articles 8 and 10,whether they will is another matter.
-
Probably because I have a background in maths
309 judgements ..13 showing no violation... That's about 4 %...lower than Russia and one of the lowest in the table.
I've provided evidence to support my claim... you respond with a sniping response backed by no evidence ..
Where is your evidence to show I'm wrong
Portugal 4%...UK about 30%...you would have to be blind not to understand
My reading of it is that UK lawyers are more likely to make unfounded applications than Portuguese lawyers.
-
Nope,read what is written,Davel said they (echr) "can" adjudicate on articles 8 and 10,whether they will is another matter.
Why the semantics.... If the case is admitted... Can you point out one reason why it shouldn't... Then they will rule on it.
I used the word... Can... In that context because if the mccanns had complained about other points in the judgements they may be points the ECHR cannot rule on..
-
My reading of it is that UK lawyers are more likely to make unfounded applications than Portuguese lawyers.
If the applications have no merit they would not be accepted
The fact is that in 309 cases that went to judgement it was found there was no violation in only 13 cases.... That means there was a violation in 296 cases. That means the portugues court was wrong in 296 cases out of 309
It's clear that the Portuguese courts, are failing to correctly apply ECHR... they are actually one of the worst
-
If the applications have no merit they would not be accepted
The fact is that in 309 cases that went to judgement it was found there was no violation in only 13 cases.... That means there was a violation in 296 cases. That means the portugues court was wrong in 296 cases out of 309
It's clear that the Portuguese courts, are failing to correctly apply ECHR... they are actually one of the worst
So 75% of cases against Portugal were upheld; a result similar to Norway, France, Italy, Finland and Belgium.
The UK and Russia seem to be different with 58% and 93% respectively.
-
So 75% of cases against Portugal were upheld; a result similar to Norway, France, Italy, Finland and Belgium.
The UK and Russia seem to be different with 58% and 93% respectively.
where does that figure come from....what do you mean by upheld......i dont think you understand the table at all...you seem totally confused
-
where does that figure come from....what do you mean by upheld......i dont think you understand the table at all...you seem totally confused
Applictions are upheld when the court finds a violation.
-
Applictions are upheld when the court finds a violation.
Portugal had 309 judgements.. Only 13 found no violation.. That's 4%.....one of the worst... Those are the true figures
-
Portugal had 309 judgements.. Only 13 found no violation.. That's 4%.....one of the worst... Those are the true figures
It's not a case of how many cases are upheld in my opinion. Clearly the applications against Portugal were solid ones. Other applications against other countries weren't.
-
It's not a case of how many cases are upheld in my opinion. Clearly the applications against Portugal were solid ones. Other applications against other countries weren't.
Of course they were solid ones... Because the SC made mistakes... Other countries judiciaries apply European law more accurately... Can't you understand such a simple principle..
-
Of course they were solid ones... Because the SC made mistakes... Other countries judiciaries apply European law more accurately... Can't you understand such a simple principle..
So UK lawyers put forward more of the less solid cases than Portuguese lawyers did.
-
So UK lawyers put forward more of the less solid cases than Portuguese lawyers did.
It seems you are trying to make up ridiculous excuses fir Portugal's abysmal record at the ECHR.. One thing can't be denied.. Their record is abysmal
-
It seems you are trying to make up ridiculous excuses fir Portugal's abysmal record at the ECHR.. One thing can't be denied.. Their record is abysmal
Amnesty International aren't all that pleased with Portugal either.
-
Applictions are upheld when the court finds a violation.
However, the EU countries who have signed up can be held account and 'punished' qlthoughm Countries can ignore the findings anyhow. The UK is now working on its own laws and supreme courts. After some dodgy people were granted legal aid to stay in this country with the blessing of the ECHR. The right to live VS the right to kill and murder.
Amnesty International has been hijacked by terrorist groups around the globe.
-
However, the EU countries who have signed up can be held account and 'punished' qlthoughm Countries can ignore the findings anyhow. The UK is now working on its own laws and supreme courts. After some dodgy people were granted legal aid to stay in this country with the blessing of the ECHR. The right to live VS the right to kill and murder.
Amnesty International has been hijacked by terrorist groups around the globe.
Its not just EU countries who are signed up to the declaration of Human Rights
-
Amnesty International aren't all that pleased with Portugal either.
Not sure amnesty's flag is one to pin to a mast.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/feb/06/amnesty-international-has-toxic-working-culture-report-finds.
-
Its not just EU countries who are signed up to the declaration of Human Rights
I know that Davel. I have mentioned before, it was the countries of the EU who used it. I believe Russia and a couple of other non EU countries signed up. That is the reason for not wanting EU laws to be paramount to national laws.
-
I know that Davel. I have mentioned before, it was the countries of the EU who used it. I believe Russia and a couple of other non EU countries signed up. That is the reason for not wanting EU laws to be paramount to national laws.
It's more than a couple.. About 20
-
Amnesty International aren't all that pleased with Portugal either.
Cite?
-
Cite?
Sorry I haven't taken the time to read through - https://algarvedailynews.com/news/15722-amnesty-international-reports-on-portugal-persistent-human-rights-problems - there are just so many of them.
I seem to remember one from around 2007 when they expressed some amazement to finding an unusual number of, I think it was baseball bats, during inspections of police stations.
-
Sorry I haven't taken the time to read through - https://algarvedailynews.com/news/15722-amnesty-international-reports-on-portugal-persistent-human-rights-problems - there are just so many of them.
I seem to remember one from around 2007 when they expressed some amazement to finding an unusual number of, I think it was baseball bats, during inspections of police stations.
Thank you, Brietta. Oh Dear. Worse than I thought.
-
Thank you, Brietta. Oh Dear. Worse than I thought.
It's much worse... Amnesty as I understand was started by a British lawyer who read about two Portuguese students jailed for raising a toast to freedom
https://www.google.com/amp/s/m.huffpost.com/us/entry/976849/amp
-
It's much worse... Amnesty as I understand was started by a British lawyer who read about two Portuguese students jailed for raising a toast to freedom
https://www.google.com/amp/s/m.huffpost.com/us/entry/976849/amp
Thank you, Davel. Even more worser.
-
Thank you, Davel. Even more worser.
I know....
https://www.mintpressnews.com/amnesty-international-troubling-collaboration-with-uk-us-intelligence/253939/ (https://www.mintpressnews.com/amnesty-international-troubling-collaboration-with-uk-us-intelligence/253939/)
-
Another ruling against Portugal in the ECHR, this time about the right to a fair trial. In this case the accused was cleared in the First Instance Court but the Appeal Court overruled the decision. Neither the accused or any witnesses were heard by the Appeal Court & evidence was ignored.
Paixão Moreira Sá Fernandes v. Portugal
Judgement here:-
https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng-press#{%22itemid%22:[%22003-6647350-8832117%22]}
-
Another ruling against Portugal in the ECHR, this time about the right to a fair trial. In this case the accused was cleared in the First Instance Court but the Appeal Court overruled the decision. Neither the accused or any witnesses were heard by the Appeal Court & evidence was ignored.
Paixão Moreira Sá Fernandes v. Portugal
Judgement here:-
https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng-press#{%22itemid%22:[%22003-6647350-8832117%22]}
Amaral wasn't heard either was he? so the parallels here are the accused overturned a decision.
-
Amaral wasn't heard either was he? so the parallels here are the accused overturned a decision.
What's relevant is that sceptics seem to think that the SC in Portugal cannot possibly get the law wrong whereas the truth is it has a very poor record when it's decisions are challenged
-
What's relevant is that sceptics seem to think that the SC in Portugal cannot possibly get the law wrong whereas the truth is it has a very poor record when it's decisions are challenged
So what's your point?
-
So what's your point?
Law of averages say the Portuguese will be right in the end,who knows it might be this one.
-
Law of averages say the Portuguese will be right in the end,who knows it might be this one.
Is that how you think the law works...the law of averages...bizarre
-
So what's your point?
Read it again you might understand this time...it's quite clear what the point is
-
Read it again you might understand this time...it's quite clear what the point is
Ahh, yes, I see now. Of course. I read it again and I fully un...............uuurrrrghhh.....
-
Ahh, yes, I see now. Of course. I read it again and I fully un...............uuurrrrghhh.....
The point of the post is quite clear
-
The point of the post is quite clear
Yeh, good job I re-read as you said, because .........huuugggurrghghggggh.
-
Ahh, yes, I see now. Of course. I read it again and I fully un...............uuurrrrghhh.....
Yeh, good job I re-read as you said, because .........huuugggurrghghggggh.
Do you have an affliction of some sort?
So sorry. I should get to bed with a hotw..er bottle if I were you. It sounds as tho it is getting worse !
-
If the McCann case doesn't get passed the application stage, it won't matter what other decisions the ECHR make.
-
If the McCann case doesn't get passed the application stage, it won't matter what other decisions the ECHR make.
Having looked at the admission criteria I don't see any reason why it would be rejected...do you?
-
Do you have an affliction of some sort?
So sorry. I should get to bed with a hotw..er bottle if I were you. It sounds as tho it is getting worse !
Don't be sorry.
-
Don't be sorry.
No, I can't stop laughing- seriously? on the topic of Human rights you are being denied free speech!
It is just toooooo funny! Bucket full or Irony or what.
-
Please keep comments convivial folks.
-
Please keep comments convivial folks.
I have rarely seen any conviviality on this board. If by convivial you mean friendly, genial, affable, amiable, congenial, agreeable, good-humoured, cordial, warm, sociable, outgoing, gregarious, clubbable, companionable, hail-fellow-well-met. cheerful, jolly, jovial, merry, lively, enjoyable, festive.
-
I have rarely seen any conviviality on this board. If by convivial you mean friendly, genial, affable, amiable, congenial, agreeable, good-humoured, cordial, warm, sociable, outgoing, gregarious, clubbable, companionable, hail-fellow-well-met. cheerful, jolly, jovial, merry, lively, enjoyable, festive.
I have. . although I disagree on several points with the General. .I've never really had a problem with him..or him with me ...same with pathfinder
-
I have rarely seen any conviviality on this board. If by convivial you mean friendly, genial, affable, amiable, congenial, agreeable, good-humoured, cordial, warm, sociable, outgoing, gregarious, clubbable, companionable, hail-fellow-well-met. cheerful, jolly, jovial, merry, lively, enjoyable, festive.
I am literally all of those things, unless you insult me or my intelligence - then not so much.
-
Barrier posted..
So you agree there'll be no book banning,so what of the author? we'd best continue in the echr thread.
i think its logically clear that if the ECHR rule in the McCanns favour then if the book is still on sale and amaral repeats his claims he could be hauled back to court and the McCanns having an ECHR ruling would have a watertight case
-
Barrier posted..
So you agree there'll be no book banning,so what of the author? we'd best continue in the echr thread.
i think its logically clear that if the ECHR rule in the McCanns favour then if the book is still on sale and amaral repeats his claims he could be hauled back to court and the McCanns having an ECHR ruling would have a watertight case
The contents of the book are widely known and available and Amaral can say what he wants unless the McCanns want to follow him around suing him in different jurisdictions.
-
The contents of the book are widely known and available and Amaral can say what he wants unless the McCanns want to follow him around suing him in different jurisdictions.
with a ruling from the ECHR they might just do that...it would be very easy for them
-
IMO the ECHR will not make a ruling until the case is closed,think about it!
-
IMO the ECHR will not make a ruling until the case is closed,think about it!
i dont agree ..think about it.
-
IMO the ECHR will not make a ruling until the case is closed,think about it!
Grrrrr ECHR on both threads- I will post this on both.
a little reminder of the action the McCanns took against Amaral/book.
The McCanns did not sue for libel. So the ECHR will not be able to rule on that.
Their claim was based on the book stopping people from searching for their daughter- they also were seeking compensation for themselves, their three children- even though one of them could have been dead.
The SC ruled that Amaral had freedom of expression to write the book, which was based on the theory discussed/believed by those investigating MBM's disappearance at that time. The McCanns failed to prove that Amarals book did cause the harm they claimed.
There was no question of compensation being offered to the parents as they had no evidence to back up their claims, and the babies were too young to know pain about an 'abducted daughter'.
-
Grrrrr ECHR on both threads- I will post this on both.
a little reminder of the action the McCanns took against Amaral/book.
The McCanns did not sue for libel. So the ECHR will not be able to rule on that.
Their claim was based on the book stopping people from searching for their daughter- they also were seeking compensation for themselves, their three children- even though one of them could have been dead.
The SC ruled that Amaral had freedom of expression to write the book, which was based on the theory discussed/believed by those investigating MBM's disappearance at that time. The McCanns failed to prove that Amarals book did cause the harm they claimed.
There was no question of compensation being offered to the parents as they had no evidence to back up their claims, and the babies were too young to know pain about an 'abducted daughter'.
you need to look at the SC ruling and you will see you are quite wrong...
this is the response to the request for the annulment as translated by amaral supporters on the PJGA Blogspot..
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.
-
you need to look at the SC ruling and you will see you are quite wrong...
this is the response to the request for the annulment as translated by amaral supporters on the PJGA Blogspot..
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.
I don't think I am wrong- the McCanns did not sue Amaral for libel!- because the 'argument' is them claiming innocence and the SC saying they have not been declared innocent- which they haven't because they have not been tried in a court of law. Presumption of innocence has not been affected as it is the right of the PJ to continue to suspect wrong doing by the parents. That is why the case was archived. They opened the case and still not declared the McCanns innocent or guilty.
ECHR would be looking at Portugal, to see if they managed the actual claims correctly-not Amaral, and his outcome will not be affected.
-
I don't think I am wrong- the McCanns did not sue Amaral for libel!- because the 'argument' is them claiming innocence and the SC saying they have not been declared innocent- which they haven't because they have not been tried in a court of law. Presumption of innocence has not been affected as it is the right of the PJ to continue to suspect wrong doing by the parents. That is why the case was archived. They opened the case and still not declared the McCanns innocent or guilty.
ECHR would be looking at Portugal, to see if they managed the actual claims correctly-not Amaral, and his outcome will not be affected.
You are absolutely wrong as you would realise if you read my post and the cite provided....if you read the SC judgement which continually discussed the right to reputation vs free speech. The ECHR can only rule on human rights...not if the book harmed the search...
-
You are absolutely wrong as you would realise if you read my post and the cite provided....if you read the SC judgement which continually discussed the right to reputation vs free speech. The ECHR can only rule on human rights...not if the book harmed the search...
Yes. I know! But the catalyst was the original claim-which wasn't libel. The McCanns lawyer brought into the court hearing about the McCanns being innocent. This was corrected. That is now the ECHR claim.
-
Yes. I know! But the catalyst was the original claim-which wasn't libel. The McCanns lawyer brought into the court hearing about the McCanns being innocent. This was corrected. That is now the ECHR claim.
the SC judgement is almost entirely re libel and presumption of innocence
-
the SC judgement is almost entirely re libel and presumption of innocence
We need to agree to disagree on this one.
-
We need to agree to disagree on this one.
fine by me
-
We need to agree to disagree on this one.
According to the Annulment request;
Just as (this STJ's Section) could not assert that it is not acceptable to assimilate the aforementioned filing order to a verified proof of innocence
http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/Annulment_request.htm
I can think of no reason for the McCann's lawyers to write that unless they had tried to argue that the filing order was 'a verified proof of innocence'.
-
According to the Annulment request;
Just as (this STJ's Section) could not assert that it is not acceptable to assimilate the aforementioned filing order to a verified proof of innocence
http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/Annulment_request.htm
I can think of no reason for the McCann's lawyers to write that unless they had tried to argue that the filing order was 'a verified proof of innocence'.
so you dont have a cite...you have an opinion...so your claim that the mccanns lawyer claimed the mccanns had been declared innocent is opinion...not fact.
From what I have raed the mccanns lawyer claimed the archiving despatch was evidence of innocence...not proof
-
According to the Annulment request;
Just as (this STJ's Section) could not assert that it is not acceptable to assimilate the aforementioned filing order to a verified proof of innocence
http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/Annulment_request.htm
I can think of no reason for the McCann's lawyers to write that unless they had tried to argue that the filing order was 'a verified proof of innocence'.
the word used is comprovacao...which translates as confirmation...not proof of innocence. Proof is ...prova...looks like another poor translation
-
the word used is comprovacao...which translates as confirmation...not proof of innocence. Proof is ...prova...looks like another poor translation
CONFIRM implies the removing of doubts by an authoritative statement or indisputable fact.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/confirm
-
CONFIRM implies the removing of doubts by an authoritative statement or indisputable fact.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/confirm
So you accept it may be an inaccurate translation....may also be evidence of innocence which is mentioned elsewhere..we know which word the SC used...which word did the McCann's lawyers use...we don't know
-
So you accept it may be an inaccurate translation....may also be evidence of innocence which is mentioned elsewhere..we know which word the SC used...which word did the McCann's lawyers use...we don't know
Prove and confirm mean the same thing.
-
Prove and confirm mean the same thing.
What does prove mean ...I can think of three different levels of proof.....
We don't even know for sure if confirm is the correct translation and we don't know what the lawyers for the McCanns claimed. As I recall it was the archiving report is evidence of innocence... which it surely is
-
What does prove mean ...I can think of three different levels of proof.....
We don't even know for sure if confirm is the correct translation and we don't know what the lawyers for the McCanns claimed. As I recall it was the archiving report is evidence of innocence... which it surely is
Innocence of what? no crime has been established.
-
Innocence of what? no crime has been established.
Innocence at any criminal involvement..it must have been suspected as they were declared arguidos
-
Innocence at any criminal involvement..it must have been suspected as they were declared arguidos
Yes, they were suspects, as is normal when the child went missing and the parents claim they were absent- no crime was defined though as far as I am aware.
-
Caveat its the brit press but its not even decided if its admissible yet.
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/13975731/madeleine-mccann-parents-silence-ex-cop-setback/
A spokesperson for the European Court of Human Rights told The Sun Online today: "A judge is due to rule of the admissibility of their application over the coming months.
"It is still under consideration and it is expected to be notified to the Portuguese Government by the end of April."
-
Caveat its the brit press but its not even decided if its admissible yet.
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/13975731/madeleine-mccann-parents-silence-ex-cop-setback/
A spokesperson for the European Court of Human Rights told The Sun Online today: "A judge is due to rule of the admissibility of their application over the coming months.
"It is still under consideration and it is expected to be notified to the Portuguese Government by the end of April."
They’re going to lose it, as a punishment for Brexit, that’s my prediction.
-
Odd headline grab, Wolters claims the same.
'BITTER BLOW' Madeleine McCann’s parents’ 12-year fight to silence ex-cop who claims their daughter is dead suffers setback
-
Caveat its the brit press but its not even decided if its admissible yet.
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/13975731/madeleine-mccann-parents-silence-ex-cop-setback/
A spokesperson for the European Court of Human Rights told The Sun Online today: "A judge is due to rule of the admissibility of their application over the coming months.
"It is still under consideration and it is expected to be notified to the Portuguese Government by the end of April."
I was wondering what stage things were at. Now we all know. Thank you.
-
Caveat its the brit press but its not even decided if its admissible yet.
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/13975731/madeleine-mccann-parents-silence-ex-cop-setback/
A spokesperson for the European Court of Human Rights told The Sun Online today: "A judge is due to rule of the admissibility of their application over the coming months.
"It is still under consideration and it is expected to be notified to the Portuguese Government by the end of April."
It doesn't sound like it's ever going to reach the front of the queue, does it? Other more urgent cases are probably holding this relatively minor application from being dealt with.
I see Ms Kandohla still hasn't a clue what she's talking about; she's still disseminating misinformation imo. She is discussing the application to the ECHR as if it is a continuation of their campaign against Amaral imo which it isn't. It has nothing to do with payments to or from him, which should all have been settled before their application was made. They are now complaining about the Portuguese state and if they ever win it's Portugal who may pay compensation to them, no-one else.
-
And i think...based on the evidence...we can predict what the decision will be.
Its interesting that three years ago sceptics were saying teh Mcccanns would not go to the ECHR...that they had no grounds....realistically another year and there may well be some action
Almost to the day... I must be psychic
-
It doesn't sound like it's ever going to reach the front of the queue, does it? Other more urgent cases are probably holding this relatively minor application from being dealt with.
I see Ms Kandohla still hasn't a clue what she's talking about; she's still disseminating misinformation imo. She is discussing the application to the ECHR as if it is a continuation of their campaign against Amaral imo which it isn't. It has nothing to do with payments to or from him, which should all have been settled before their application was made. They are now complaining about the Portuguese state and if they ever win it's Portugal who may pay compensation to them, no-one else.
So have the McCanns already handed over the contents of the fund to Amaral?
-
So have the McCanns already handed over the contents of the fund to Amaral?
Was it ever true that the McCanns would have to hand over the contents of the Fund to Amaral, or was it a rumour put about previously by another contributor to the Sun? He mentioned an award to Amaral of £430,000, but I've no idea what he was talking about.
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/13975731/madeleine-mccann-parents-silence-ex-cop-setback/
-
Was it ever true that the McCanns would have to hand over the contents of the Fund to Amaral, or was it a rumour put about previously by another contributor to the Sun? He mentioned an award to Amaral of £430,000, but I've no idea what he was talking about.
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/13975731/madeleine-mccann-parents-silence-ex-cop-setback/
So you don’t believe the McCanns have or will ever have to pay Amaral’s costs or compensation?
-
So you don’t believe the McCanns have or will ever have to pay Amaral’s costs or compensation?
I know that the Portuguese Courts ordered the McCanns to pay the costs of those they sued. I have seen no evidence that any of those they sued requested or were granted any compensation. I believe that applicants should pay anything they owe to national courts before they apply the ECHR.
My opinion, based on my knowledge above, is that the McCanns owe nothing to anyone at this point in time. If, at some point in the future they win their case against Portugal they may get a payment out of that. If they lose they will owe their lawyers for whatever work they bill them for.
-
What's the fund got to do with it, it's McCann and Healey v Portugal not the fund v Portugal.
-
And i think...based on the evidence...we can predict what the decision will be.
Its interesting that three years ago sceptics were saying teh Mcccanns would not go to the ECHR...that they had no grounds....realistically another year and there may well be some action
But there hasn't been any action, and that was the point of the article. So you fail as a psychic once again.
-
What's the fund got to do with it, it's McCann and Healey v Portugal not the fund v Portugal.
The Fund is mentioned in the article you brought to the forum for discussion.
-
I know that the Portuguese Courts ordered the McCanns to pay the costs of those they sued. I have seen no evidence that any of those they sued requested or were granted any compensation. I believe that applicants should pay anything they owe to national courts before they apply the ECHR.
My opinion, based on my knowledge above, is that the McCanns owe nothing to anyone at this point in time. If, at some point in the future they win their case against Portugal they may get a payment out of that. If they lose they will owe their lawyers for whatever work they bill them for.
Amaral didn't pay anything to The McCanns before he appealed.
-
But there hasn't been any action, and that was the point of the article. So you fail as a psychic once again.
It's a joke taking the micky out of psychics. No psychic has ever genuinely succeeded either
I could argue this statement in the Sun... And the article in the sun is action. That's how so called psychics work.. Making facts fit their predictions
-
Amaral didn't pay anything to The McCanns before he appealed.
Probably because he was appealing against an earlier judgement in the same judicial system.
This is a totally different case - McCann/Healy v Portugal and a different court.
-
Probably because he was appealing against an earlier judgement in the same judicial system.
This is a totally different case - McCann/Healy v Portugal and a different court.
But still an Appeal about a Case. And as far as I can remember Court Costs are paid upfront.
-
They’re going to lose it, as a punishment for Brexit, that’s my prediction.
The ECHR isn't an EU institution.
-
But still an Appeal about a Case. And as far as I can remember Court Costs are paid upfront.
How can that be? Nobody will know how long a case is going to last in advance.
-
The ECHR isn't an EU institution.
What would you call it then?
-
How can that be? Nobody will know how long a case is going to last in advance.
It could be a set fee.
-
The ECHR isn't an EU institution.
I didn't say it was.
-
What would you call it then?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Court_of_Human_Rights
-
How can that be? Nobody will know how long a case is going to last in advance.
Paid for upfront when an application is made. These are not very high in Portugal if I am correct. There was a lot about it at the time.
-
It could be a set fee.
I believe it is, Rob.
-
https://www.google.com/search?client=ms-android-huawei-rev1&sxsrf=ALeKk00Ay5y649AJQwHPwUSCnzc7C34Q5A:1612738627529&q=Article+8+ECHR&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiXp4nI79juAhV1mVwKHRQtAjcQ1QIwF3oECB4QAQ&biw=703&bih=333&dpr=3
Page 40...interesting info re defamation and the presumption of innocence
-
https://www.google.com/search?client=ms-android-huawei-rev1&sxsrf=ALeKk00Ay5y649AJQwHPwUSCnzc7C34Q5A:1612738627529&q=Article+8+ECHR&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiXp4nI79juAhV1mVwKHRQtAjcQ1QIwF3oECB4QAQ&biw=703&bih=333&dpr=3
Article 8 Guide is 148 pages long!
-
Article 8 Guide is 148 pages long!
Page 40...its in the index
Some interesting points..
-
Unwise to predict a legal outcome, but I shall be delighted if the McCanns fail this hurdle, mainly because it will mean an end to this legal marathon.
-
Unwise to predict a legal outcome, but I shall be delighted if the McCanns fail this hurdle, mainly because it will mean an end to this legal marathon.
As it would be if they won.
-
Article 8 Guide is 148 pages long!
Page 40, Rob.
-
But still an Appeal about a Case. And as far as I can remember Court Costs are paid upfront.
An appeal has the power to reverse a previous decision by a lower court. The ECHR doesn't have the power to overturn the judgements of national courts, therefore an application to the ECHR is not an appeal.
Court costs were paid by all the defendants and following the Supreme Court judgement the McCanns were ordered to pay those people back. Those initially sued were;
GONCALO DE SOUSA AMARAL
GUERRA & PAZ, EDITORES, S.A.
V.C. – VALENTIM DE CARVALHO-FILMES, AUDIOVISUAIS, S.A.
TVI – TELEVISAO INDEPENDENTE, S.A.
The court of the first instance found against three of the defendants and acquited TVI, so they were not involved after that.
-
Unwise to predict a legal outcome, but I shall be delighted if the McCanns fail this hurdle, mainly because it will mean an end to this legal marathon.
Well, you would be, wouldn't you.
-
An appeal has the power to reverse a previous decision by a lower court. The ECHR doesn't have the power to overturn the judgements of national courts, therefore an application to the ECHR is not an appeal.
Court costs were paid by all the defendants and following the Supreme Court judgement the McCanns were ordered to pay those people back. Those initially sued were;
GONCALO DE SOUSA AMARAL
GUERRA & PAZ, EDITORES, S.A.
V.C. – VALENTIM DE CARVALHO-FILMES, AUDIOVISUAIS, S.A.
TVI – TELEVISAO INDEPENDENTE, S.A.
The court of the first instance found against three of the defendants and acquited TVI, so they were not involved after that.
If it isn't an Appeal, what is it then?
-
Well, you would be, wouldn't you.
What's not to like ?
-
What's not to like ?
A totally screwed Justice System wherein Innocent People can be Libelled wholesale.
-
A totally screwed Justice System wherein Innocent People can be Libelled wholesale.
I suppose that's one way of looking at it.
-
I suppose that's one way of looking at it.
I guess you have to believe in Innocent Until Proven Guilty to follow my line of reasoning. Especially when some morally defunct individual is doing The Libelling.
-
I believe in the right of a sovereign country to apply judgement according to it's laws.
That you object to this is neither here nor there.
I suppose if the ECHR reject the McCann application, you will be whining about the injustice of that as well.
-
I believe in the right of a sovereign country to apply judgement according to it's laws.
That you object to this is neither here nor there.
I suppose if the ECHR reject the McCann application, you will be whining about the injustice of that as well.
And you will be quite content if the ECHR accept the McCanns application I suppose....
-
I believe in the right of a sovereign country to apply judgement according to it's laws.
That you object to this is neither here nor there.
I suppose if the ECHR reject the McCann application, you will be whining about the injustice of that as well.
If Portugal signed up to the ECHR then its only right they abide by it. No doubt sceptics will be whining if the McCanns are successful
-
I believe in the right of a sovereign country to apply judgement according to it's laws.
That you object to this is neither here nor there.
I suppose if the ECHR reject the McCann application, you will be whining about the injustice of that as well.
No, I won't be whining. It is a Legal Process to me, whatever the outcome.
I am more concerned about the ordinary people of Portugal who are subjected to a bunch of bandit coppers who think that beating a confession out of peasants is the way to go.
-
No, I won't be whining. It is a Legal Process to me, whatever the outcome.
I am more concerned about the ordinary people of Portugal who are subjected to a bunch of bandit coppers who think that beating a confession out of peasants is the way to go.
How every noble of you.
-
If Portugal signed up to the ECHR then its only right they abide by it. No doubt sceptics will be whining if the McCanns are successful
Well not me, that's for sure.
-
How every noble of you.
You should try it. But I don't suppose that you are interested enough. Bashing The McCanns is so much more fun.
-
A totally screwed Justice System wherein Innocent People can be Libelled wholesale.
Are you posting opinion as fact?
-
Are you posting opinion as fact?
Clearly it's a system which puts people's freedom to libel over people's right not to be libelled so it's a fact is it not?
-
You should try it. But I don't suppose that you are interested enough. Bashing The McCanns is so much more fun.
Absolutely right on both counts.
-
Clearly it's a system which puts people's freedom to libel over people's right not to be libelled so it's a fact is it not?
It's not clear to me. In fact as I understand it Portugal had a tradition of prioritising people's right to honour over freedom of speech and had been penalised for it in the past. I offer my evidence and look forward to seeing yours upholding your statement. You couldn't be basing your opinion on just one case, could you?
"it is important to know how the Superior Courts fall and solve the conflict between the contemplated rights, starting with the ECHR, of which the jurisprudence is particularly industrious and interesting in this matter.
From this same jurisprudence one retains that in contrast to the traditional current of the Portuguese higher courts, this court does not accept, in principle, the priority of the right to honour and good over the freedom of expression/freedom of the press..."
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=7937.msg383228#msg383228
Teixeira da Mota: Portuguese courts traditionally placed a high value on the rights to honour and reputation and considered freedom of expression a second-class freedom compared to those rights. Even today there remains in many cases a tendency to place too much value on the words, image, and reputation of powerful figures when weighed against critical opinions about those figures. Courts continue, at times, to not distinguish between assertions of fact and value judgments, which obviously ends up harming freedom of expression.
https://ipi.media/portuguese-defamation-laws-still-reflect-authoritarian-concept-of-power-expert-says/
-
Are you posting opinion as fact?
I think it is a fact. Amaral did Libel The McCanns many times, but The Court ruled in favour of his right to do so.
-
It's not clear to me. In fact as I understand it Portugal had a tradition of prioritising people's right to honour over freedom of speech and had been penalised for it in the past. I offer my evidence and look forward to seeing yours upholding your statement. You couldn't be basing your opinion on just one case, could you?
"it is important to know how the Superior Courts fall and solve the conflict between the contemplated rights, starting with the ECHR, of which the jurisprudence is particularly industrious and interesting in this matter.
From this same jurisprudence one retains that in contrast to the traditional current of the Portuguese higher courts, this court does not accept, in principle, the priority of the right to honour and good over the freedom of expression/freedom of the press..."
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=7937.msg383228#msg383228
Teixeira da Mota: Portuguese courts traditionally placed a high value on the rights to honour and reputation and considered freedom of expression a second-class freedom compared to those rights. Even today there remains in many cases a tendency to place too much value on the words, image, and reputation of powerful figures when weighed against critical opinions about those figures. Courts continue, at times, to not distinguish between assertions of fact and value judgments, which obviously ends up harming freedom of expression.
https://ipi.media/portuguese-defamation-laws-still-reflect-authoritarian-concept-of-power-expert-says/
I wonder what happen to that when it came to The McCanns.
Although that Cite sounds mostly like gobbled gook to me.
-
It's not clear to me. In fact as I understand it Portugal had a tradition of prioritising people's right to honour over freedom of speech and had been penalised for it in the past. I offer my evidence and look forward to seeing yours upholding your statement. You couldn't be basing your opinion on just one case, could you?
"it is important to know how the Superior Courts fall and solve the conflict between the contemplated rights, starting with the ECHR, of which the jurisprudence is particularly industrious and interesting in this matter.
From this same jurisprudence one retains that in contrast to the traditional current of the Portuguese higher courts, this court does not accept, in principle, the priority of the right to honour and good over the freedom of expression/freedom of the press..."
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=7937.msg383228#msg383228
Teixeira da Mota: Portuguese courts traditionally placed a high value on the rights to honour and reputation and considered freedom of expression a second-class freedom compared to those rights. Even today there remains in many cases a tendency to place too much value on the words, image, and reputation of powerful figures when weighed against critical opinions about those figures. Courts continue, at times, to not distinguish between assertions of fact and value judgments, which obviously ends up harming freedom of expression.
https://ipi.media/portuguese-defamation-laws-still-reflect-authoritarian-concept-of-power-expert-says/
One case is all it takes to prove the point.
-
It's not clear to me. In fact as I understand it Portugal had a tradition of prioritising people's right to honour over freedom of speech and had been penalised for it in the past. I offer my evidence and look forward to seeing yours upholding your statement. You couldn't be basing your opinion on just one case, could you?
"it is important to know how the Superior Courts fall and solve the conflict between the contemplated rights, starting with the ECHR, of which the jurisprudence is particularly industrious and interesting in this matter.
From this same jurisprudence one retains that in contrast to the traditional current of the Portuguese higher courts, this court does not accept, in principle, the priority of the right to honour and good over the freedom of expression/freedom of the press..."
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=7937.msg383228#msg383228
Teixeira da Mota: Portuguese courts traditionally placed a high value on the rights to honour and reputation and considered freedom of expression a second-class freedom compared to those rights. Even today there remains in many cases a tendency to place too much value on the words, image, and reputation of powerful figures when weighed against critical opinions about those figures. Courts continue, at times, to not distinguish between assertions of fact and value judgments, which obviously ends up harming freedom of expression.
https://ipi.media/portuguese-defamation-laws-still-reflect-authoritarian-concept-of-power-expert-says/
From my reading and interpretation of Portugals attitude towards the balance of article 10 and 8 they have in the past put greater importance to right to reputation than frre spoech... But..
From what I have seen this has applied to where journalists have criticised judges and the establishment. In these cases the Portuguese courts seem to have put the judges and establishment first.. This is what the ECHR has criticised them for.
-
I think it is a fact. Amaral did Libel The McCanns many times, but The Court ruled in favour of his right to do so.
A fact is something which has been proved to be correct. How do you propose to prove that Amaral libelled the McCanns many times?
-
From my reading and interpretation of Portugals attitude towards the balance of article 10 and 8 they have in the past put greater importance to right to reputation than frre spoech... But..
From what I have seen this has applied to where journalists have criticised judges and the establishment. In these cases the Portuguese courts seem to have put the judges and establishment first.. This is what the ECHR has criticised them for.
Thank you for explaining that. You did this so much better than I could have done.
-
From my reading and interpretation of Portugals attitude towards the balance of article 10 and 8 they have in the past put greater importance to right to reputation than frre spoech... But..
From what I have seen this has applied to where journalists have criticised judges and the establishment. In these cases the Portuguese courts seem to have put the judges and establishment first.. This is what the ECHR has criticised them for.
Do you have examples showing that Portugal has been criticised only for putting judges and the establishment first?
-
A fact is something which has been proved to be correct. How do you propose to prove that Amaral libelled the McCanns many times?
I don't have to. It's obvious. Even if correct Amaral couldn't prove it at the time and still can't.
-
Do you have examples showing that Portugal has been criticised only for putting judges and the establishment first?
First read your own post.. It seems to confirm what I have said. I can recall one particular case where a journalist criticised a judge.. SC ruled in the judges favour.. ECHR in the journalists favour. I'm not going to find it at the moment and that's why I worded my post so that a cite wasn't necessary
-
I don't have to. It's obvious. Even if correct Amaral couldn't prove it at the time and still can't.
What you have to prove is that what he said was libellous. Something which the McCanns and their lawyers failed to prove. You believe it's true and that the Portuguese courts couldn't see that it was true, but that doesn't mean it is true, it's still just your opinion.
-
Do you have examples showing that Portugal has been criticised only for putting judges and the establishment first?
This is from your own post... Do you read your own posts
Teixeira da Mota: Portuguese courts traditionally placed a high value on the rights to honour and reputation and considered freedom of expression a second-class freedom compared to those rights. Even today there remains in many cases a tendency to place too much value on the words, image, and reputation of powerful figures when weighed against critical opinions about those figures. Courts continue, at times, to not distinguish between assertions of fact and value judgments, which obviously ends up harming freedom of expression.
https://ipi.media/portuguese-defamation-laws-still-reflect-authoritarian-concept-of-power-expert-says
-
What you have to prove is that what he said was libellous. Something which the McCanns and their lawyers failed to prove. You believe it's true and that the Portuguese courts couldn't see that it was true, but that doesn't mean it is true, it's still just your opinion.
If you read the SC judgement it talks about the balance between the right to a good name and freedom of expression. The SC decided that freedom of expression was more important than the McCanns right to reputation which clearly to me is accepting amarals book affected the McCanns reputation and was therefore defamatory
-
What you have to prove is that what he said was libellous. Something which the McCanns and their lawyers failed to prove. You believe it's true and that the Portuguese courts couldn't see that it was true, but that doesn't mean it is true, it's still just your opinion.
In a just system, the onus should be on the libeller to prove their claims are true, not on the libelled to prove that they have not committed the acts for which the libeller has accused them.
-
First read your own post.. It seems to confirm what I have said. I can recall one particular case where a journalist criticised a judge.. SC ruled in the judges favour.. ECHR in the journalists favour. I'm not going to find it at the moment and that's why I worded my post so that a cite wasn't necessary
For future reference just preface any post with "From what I remember" and no cite is needed.
-
Do you have examples showing that Portugal has been criticised only for putting judges and the establishment first?
Wasn't hard to find..
https://ipi.media/qa-portuguese-journalist-on-strasbourg-victory-in-defamation-case/
And interferesting..........
, I was realistic, knowing that the power of the judge I had criticised would probably lead to my losing the case in Portugal and, later, to my winning the case at the European Court of Human Rights. That’s the way things are in my country, unfortunately.
-
What you have to prove is that what he said was libellous. Something which the McCanns and their lawyers failed to prove. You believe it's true and that the Portuguese courts couldn't see that it was true, but that doesn't mean it is true, it's still just your opinion.
This comment is just playing at Semantics. I don't have to prove anything.
-
In a just system, the onus should be on the libeller to prove their claims are true, not on the libelled to prove that they have not committed the acts for which the libeller has accused them.
Absolutely Correct.
-
In a just system, the onus should be on the libeller to prove their claims are true, not on the libelled to prove that they have not committed the acts for which the libeller has accused them.
My point is that as Amaral was found not guilty of libelling the McCanns by the highest court in Portugal it cannot be stated here as a fact that he did libel the McCanns.
-
My point is that as Amaral was found not guilty of libelling the McCanns by the highest court in Portugal it cannot be stated here as a fact that he did libel the McCanns.
Cite for where the SC said not guilty of libel... I think you are totally misguided and mistaken. The SC admitted amarals claims damaged the McCanns reputation... That's defamation accepted
-
My point is that as Amaral was found not guilty of libelling the McCanns by the highest court in Portugal it cannot be stated here as a fact that he did libel the McCanns.
Please provide a cite
-
My point is that as Amaral was found not guilty of libelling the McCanns by the highest court in Portugal it cannot be stated here as a fact that he did libel the McCanns.
Amaral was not found "Not Guilty" of Libelling The McCanns. Unless you can provide a Cite, of course.
-
My point is that as Amaral was found not guilty of libelling the McCanns by the highest court in Portugal it cannot be stated here as a fact that he did libel the McCanns.
Then there will be no problem for Amaral in finding a British publisher to progress his writing career in Britain where he apparently has a following for his literary work.
-
Then there will be no problem for Amaral in finding a British publisher to progress his writing career in Britain where he apparently has a following for his literary work.
Book signing tour, audiobook, Kindle, podcasts, YouTube, I'm a Celebrity......kkeeerrchhing.
-
Book signing tour, audiobook, Kindle, podcasts, YouTube, I'm a Celebrity......kkeeerrchhing.
And Dancing on thin Ice
-
And Dancing on thin Ice
I'm sure they use a regulation ice rink with 3/4" being the nominal thickness, over a reinforced concrete slab.
I doubt it though, as he may never have even seen an ice rink.
-
Then there will be no problem for Amaral in finding a British publisher to progress his writing career in Britain where he apparently has a following for his literary work.
Amaral might run into a bit of trouble on that front. In fact he already has from what I've heard.
-
Book signing tour, audiobook, Kindle, podcasts, YouTube, I'm a Celebrity......kkeeerrchhing.
The problem with the last one would be finding enough snakes and cockroaches willing to be dumped on his head.
-
Book signing tour, audiobook, Kindle, podcasts, YouTube, I'm a Celebrity......kkeeerrchhing.
Are you mad?
-
And Dancing on thin Ice
Who do you think is dancing on thin ice.
They also said his accusations could hamper the worldwide hunt for Maddie because if people believed she was dead they would stop searching.
But Mr Amaral successfully appealed the decision before any money exchanged hands.
The country’s Supreme Court found against the McCanns in January 2017, stating in their 76-page ruling that they had not "successfully proved their innocence".
-
Who do you think is dancing on thin ice.
They also said his accusations could hamper the worldwide hunt for Maddie because if people believed she was dead they would stop searching.
But Mr Amaral successfully appealed the decision before any money exchanged hands.
The country’s Supreme Court found against the McCanns in January 2017, stating in their 76-page ruling that they had not "successfully proved their innocence".
I guess Wolter's announcement must have stopped it dead in it's tracks.
I wonder if they'll sue
-
I guess Wolter's announcement must have stopped it dead in it's tracks.
I wonder if they'll sue
That's a rather odd assertion I think, given that the Germans are doing their level best to bring Madeleine's case to a conclusion while her parent's appeal to the European Court is against the Portuguese State.
-
Can sceptics really not see the difference between the statements of Amaral and Wolters
-
Who do you think is dancing on thin ice.
They also said his accusations could hamper the worldwide hunt for Maddie because if people believed she was dead they would stop searching.
But Mr Amaral successfully appealed the decision before any money exchanged hands.
The country’s Supreme Court found against the McCanns in January 2017, stating in their 76-page ruling that they had not "successfully proved their innocence".
Nor did they find The McCanns Guilty.
Incidentally, No One has to prove their Innocence. Except perhaps in Portugal.
-
Nor did they find The McCanns Guilty.
Incidentally, No One has to prove their Innocence. Except perhaps in Portugal.
I'm not convinced the Supreme Court said anything of the sort.
-
I'm not convinced the Supreme Court said anything of the sort.
They didnt...shows how poorly informed some people are.
-
They didnt...shows how poorly informed some people are.
Well, she does write for the Sun.
-
Much ado about nothing.
-
My point is that as Amaral was found not guilty of libelling the McCanns by the highest court in Portugal it cannot be stated here as a fact that he did libel the McCanns.
Please provide a cite - second time of asking
-
Well, she does write for the Sun.
a couple of posters here seem to believe its true
-
a couple of posters here seem to believe its true
Who are these posters you are libelling?
-
Who are these posters you are libelling?
You can’t libel anonymous individuals on the internet.
-
You can’t libel anonymous individuals on the internet.
Who said? I felt Davel was pointing the finger back at posters here on this forum. So they aren't really that anonymous are they, as we all registered to join.
-
Who said? I felt Davel was pointing the finger back at posters here on this forum. So they aren't really that anonymous are they, as we all registered to join.
Nonsense. Registered with false names mostly.
-
Nonsense. Registered with false names mostly.
Well, I didn't. Did you register with a false name? How can you make a claim like that?
-
Well, I didn't. Did you register with a false name? How can you make a claim like that?
You only have to supply a User Name and an email address. My email address contains my real name and Eleanor is one of my real names..
-
Who said? I felt Davel was pointing the finger back at posters here on this forum. So they aren't really that anonymous are they, as we all registered to join.
How can you damage someone’s reputation if no one knows who you’re talking about?
-
Most people on this Site are anonymous.
-
Most people on this Site are anonymous.
But that doesn't give members the right to libel others, does it? Well, The question was originally directed to Davel, and one day he might reply himself.
I half pie predict that it will be some over the top rant about something I have done, giving him the excuse of not answering my question. That is my prediction.
-
How can you damage someone’s reputation if no one knows who you’re talking about?
You could be damaging everyone's reputation, IMO.
eg http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=8465.msg639442#msg639442 Painting a lot people with the same brush with a stroke of a pen or keyboard.
-
a couple of posters here seem to believe its true
Maybe, maybe not. Often people pretend to believe things just to annoy others imo.
-
Maybe, maybe not. Often people pretend to believe things just to annoy others imo.
I seem to remember two posters who have said the SC stated the McCanns have not been proven innocent... Both seemed quite sincere
-
I seem to remember two posters who have said the SC stated the McCanns have not been proven innocent... Both seemed quite sincere
It's true that this passage occurs in the SC judgement;
We believe that the main damage was caused to the McCann, who lost the possibility to prove what they have protested since they were constituted arguidos: their innocence in relation to the fateful event.
Page 23 http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=7937.0
They aren't the words or thoughts of the SC judges, however, it's a quote taken from the archiving document.
-
It's true that this passage occurs in the SC judgement;
We believe that the main damage was caused to the McCann, who lost the possibility to prove what they have protested since they were constituted arguidos: their innocence in relation to the fateful event.
Page 23 http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=7937.0
They aren't the words or thoughts of the SC judges, however, it's a quote taken from the archiving document.
I'm well aware of that... It seems some are not.
-
My point is that as Amaral was found not guilty of libelling the McCanns by the highest court in Portugal it cannot be stated here as a fact that he did libel the McCanns.
Cite please - third request.
-
Cite please - third request.
In a lengthy ruling on Tuesday, Amaral was found guilty of libelling the pair
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/apr/28/madeleine-mccann-parents-win-libel-damages-goncalo-amaral-trial#:~:text=Madeleine%20McCann's%20parents%20win%20libel%20damages%20in%20trial%20of%20police%20chief,-This%20article%20is&text=In%20a%20lengthy%20ruling%20on,the%20Truth%20of%20the%20Lie.
That was the initial finding, therefore it stands to reason that both appeal courts found him not guilty of libelling the pair.
-
In a lengthy ruling on Tuesday, Amaral was found guilty of libelling the pair
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/apr/28/madeleine-mccann-parents-win-libel-damages-goncalo-amaral-trial#:~:text=Madeleine%20McCann's%20parents%20win%20libel%20damages%20in%20trial%20of%20police%20chief,-This%20article%20is&text=In%20a%20lengthy%20ruling%20on,the%20Truth%20of%20the%20Lie.
That was the initial finding, therefore it stands to reason that both appeal courts found him not guilty of libelling the pair.
I don’t think it “stand to reason” at all unless you can find the specific judgement which states no libel was commited?
-
In a lengthy ruling on Tuesday, Amaral was found guilty of libelling the pair
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/apr/28/madeleine-mccann-parents-win-libel-damages-goncalo-amaral-trial#:~:text=Madeleine%20McCann's%20parents%20win%20libel%20damages%20in%20trial%20of%20police%20chief,-This%20article%20is&text=In%20a%20lengthy%20ruling%20on,the%20Truth%20of%20the%20Lie.
That was the initial finding, therefore it stands to reason that both appeal courts found him not guilty of libelling the pair.
Thats your rather odd opinion. If you read the SC judgement you will see that they think it's whos rights should take precedence.. Free speech or honour. They are therefore accepting the McCanns have been defamed but feel the right to free speech should take precedence
-
In a lengthy ruling on Tuesday, Amaral was found guilty of libelling the pair
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/apr/28/madeleine-mccann-parents-win-libel-damages-goncalo-amaral-trial#:~:text=Madeleine%20McCann's%20parents%20win%20libel%20damages%20in%20trial%20of%20police%20chief,-This%20article%20is&text=In%20a%20lengthy%20ruling%20on,the%20Truth%20of%20the%20Lie.
That was the initial finding, therefore it stands to reason that both appeal courts found him not guilty of libelling the pair.
This is a very flawed reasoning.
-
Thats your rather odd opinion. If you read the SC judgement you will see that they think it's whos rights should take precedence.. Free speech or honour. They are therefore accepting the McCanns have been defamed but feel the right to free speech should take precedence
Is it really an odd opinion?
You are found guilty of an offence in a court of first instance. You are guilty of that offence. In a higher appeal court the verdict is overturned. You are no longer guilty, you are deemed to be not guilty. It then goes to the highest court in the land and the appeal verdict is upheld. This confirms finally that you are not guilty of the offence.
Whether you agree with the final verdict or not, that’s how it works.
-
Del
-
Is it really an odd opinion?
You are found guilty of an offence in a court of first instance. You are guilty of that offence. In a higher appeal court the verdict is overturned. You are no longer guilty, you are deemed to be not guilty. It then goes to the highest court in the land and the appeal verdict is upheld. This confirms finally that you are not guilty of the offence.
Whether you agree with the final verdict or not, that’s how it works.
Have you read the SC judgement...it confirms defamation
-
Have you read the SC judgement...it confirms defamation
Does it? Please provide the bit where the Supreme Court confirms explicitly that the McCanns were defamed. I know it states that there was no intention to defame by the publication of the book, documentary and interview.
-
Is it really an odd opinion?
You are found guilty of an offence in a court of first instance. You are guilty of that offence. In a higher appeal court the verdict is overturned. You are no longer guilty, you are deemed to be not guilty. It then goes to the highest court in the land and the appeal verdict is upheld. This confirms finally that you are not guilty of the offence.
Whether you agree with the final verdict or not, that’s how it works.
So in your opinion the courts specifically found Amaral not guilty of libel? How did they arrive at this conclusion? How was the evidence tested? Did the court decide based on evidence that actually the McCanns probably did stage an abduction and dispose of their child's body as concluded in Amaral's book? Because if they didn't and the McCanns surely should enjoy the right to be considered innocent until proven guilty, then how could any court claim they had not been libelled? I would like to see the actual ruling that stated no libel had been committed by the defendant.
-
Does it? Please provide the bit where the Supreme Court confirms explicitly that the McCanns were defamed. I know it states that there was no intention to defame by the publication of the book, documentary and interview.
It discusses the balance between the right to honour, reputation against the right to free speech. If there is no defamation there is nothing to balance... Hence an acceptance of defamation
-
It discusses the balance between the right to honour, reputation against the right to free speech. If there is no defamation there is nothing to balance... Hence an acceptance of defamation
So there is no explicit declaration that Amaral defamed the McCanns. In every single libel action there is the balance between freedom of speech and defamation. It always exists, not only in this case. I was after a direct quote that they were defamed rather than your conclusion that that were
-
So in your opinion the courts specifically found Amaral not guilty of libel? How did they arrive at this conclusion? How was the evidence tested? Did the court decide based on evidence that actually the McCanns probably did stage an abduction and dispose of their child's body as concluded in Amaral's book? Because if they didn't and the McCanns surely should enjoy the right to be considered innocent until proven guilty, then how could any court claim they had not been libelled? I would like to see the actual ruling that stated no libel had been committed by the defendant.
My opinion is meaningless, the facts are the court of 1st instance found him guilty, the higher authorities of the appeal court overturned this verdict so rendering his legal status as not guilty and the ultimate authority agreed with this verdict. So he is not guilty of libel. If you read the Supreme court report it states several times that the McCanns do have the presumption of innocence.
-
So in your opinion the courts specifically found Amaral not guilty of libel? How did they arrive at this conclusion? How was the evidence tested? Did the court decide based on evidence that actually the McCanns probably did stage an abduction and dispose of their child's body as concluded in Amaral's book? Because if they didn't and the McCanns surely should enjoy the right to be considered innocent until proven guilty, then how could any court claim they had not been libelled? I would like to see the actual ruling that stated no libel had been committed by the defendant.
Because if they didn't and the McCanns surely should enjoy the right to be considered innocent until proven guilty,
The mccs are enjoying the rights to be considered innocent.
It's just the fact they were not cleared of any involvement of what happened to Maddie - when the case was shelved.
-
So there is no explicit declaration that Amaral defamed the McCanns. In every single libel action there is the balance between freedom of speech and defamation. It always exists, not only in this case. I was after a direct quote that they were defamed rather than your conclusion that that were
There is no direct quote that he is not guilty of libel... Gunit claims he was found not guilty.
-
My opinion is meaningless, the facts are the court of 1st instance found him guilty, the higher authorities of the appeal court overturned this verdict so rendering his legal status as not guilty and the ultimate authority agreed with this verdict. So he is not guilty of libel. If you read the Supreme court report it states several times that the McCanns do have the presumption of innocence.
it actually states incorrectly that the presumption of innocence does not apply to a civil case
-
There is no direct quote that he is not guilty of libel... Gunit claims he was found not guilty.
Isn't there a clue in the decision the mccs lost. GA won.
3 - Decision.
Given what has been said, the request of review is denied and the appealed judgement confirmed.
Costs for the appellants.
-
There is no direct quote that he is not guilty of libel... Gunit claims he was found not guilty.
In the verdict of the first appeal he was “acquitted of the totality of the requests( charge of libel)”
To acquit means to “free (someone) from a charge by a verdict of not guilty”
The SC judgement was only to confirm or overturn the verdict of the first appeal.
Or are we just playing semantics?
-
Thats your rather odd opinion. If you read the SC judgement you will see that they think it's whos rights should take precedence.. Free speech or honour. They are therefore accepting the McCanns have been defamed but feel the right to free speech should take precedence
The McCanns sued for damages for defamation. You think the SC judges agreed that they had been defamed. Instead of awarding them damages, however, they punished them by ordering them to pay all the costs incurred by those they sued. i don't think I'm the one with an odd opinion.
-
My opinion is meaningless, the facts are the court of 1st instance found him guilty, the higher authorities of the appeal court overturned this verdict so rendering his legal status as not guilty and the ultimate authority agreed with this verdict. So he is not guilty of libel. If you read the Supreme court report it states several times that the McCanns do have the presumption of innocence.
The court found that his right to defame outweighed the McCanns right not to be defamed and therefore he was aquitted. That's how I read it anyway.
-
The McCanns sued for damages for defamation. You think the SC judges agreed that they had been defamed. Instead of awarding them damages, however, they punished them by ordering them to pay all the costs incurred by those they sued. i don't think I'm the one with an odd opinion.
Pretty sure Davel found your opinion odd because it was yours.
-
I'm glad we can agree that the McCanns lost their case in the Portuguese Court.
-
The court found that his right to defame outweighed the McCanns right not to be defamed and therefore he was aquitted. That's how I read it anyway.
No one has the right to defame, a defence against defamation is the right to an honest opinion.
Amaral has never said these things definitely happened, just its his opinion that that's how it played out.
-
No one has the right to defame, a defence against defamation is the right to an honest opinion.
Amaral has never said these things definitely happened, just its his opinion that that's how it played out.
I'm pretty sure he has, if not explicitly in his book, then certainly in subsequent interviews and TV programmes. No one could be left in any doubt that he is pretty certain the McCanns hid their child's body IMO.
-
I'm glad we can agree that the McCanns lost their case in the Portuguese Court.
I don't think anyone was arguing that they won it are they?
-
I'm pretty sure he has, if not explicitly in his book, then certainly in subsequent interviews and TV programmes. No one could be left in any doubt that he is pretty certain the McCanns hid their child's body IMO.
Page 02 of the Supreme Court ruling.
The book is the expression of an opinion, including the account of the conclusions that the author draws from the means of obtaining evidence produced in the investigation in order to formulate a thesis, an hypothesis of ascertainment of the facts.
-
Page 02 of the Supreme Court ruling.
The book is the expression of an opinion, including the account of the conclusions that the author draws from the means of obtaining evidence produced in the investigation in order to formulate a thesis, an hypothesis of ascertainment of the facts.
OK
-
No one has the right to defame, a defence against defamation is the right to an honest opinion.
Amaral has never said these things definitely happened, just its his opinion that that's how it played out.
Honest opinion is not a licence to say anything you might want...It has caveats which ammaral did not provide.
In his video amaral said....in the next 40 mins I will prove the child died in the apartment...that a claim it definitely happened. He has repeated several times...the child is dead
-
The McCanns sued for damages for defamation. You think the SC judges agreed that they had been defamed. Instead of awarding them damages, however, they punished them by ordering them to pay all the costs incurred by those they sued. i don't think I'm the one with an odd opinion.
It really is simple....the right to free speech was considered more important than the right to honour. its ther ein teh Judgement
-
Honest opinion is not a licence to say anything you might want...It has caveats which ammaral did not provide.
In his video amaral said....in the next 40 mins I will prove the child died in the apartment...that a claim it definitely happened. He has repeated several times...the child is dead
Is that not also what Wolters says ?
-
Honest opinion is not a licence to say anything you might want...It has caveats which ammaral did not provide.
In his video amaral said....in the next 40 mins I will prove the child died in the apartment...that a claim it definitely happened. He has repeated several times...the child is dead
Well the appeal court and the Supreme Court ruled it was opinion. Neither you or I were there and privy to the information. Your second paragraph is still opinion. It was his opinion he could prove it with his hypothesis of the evidence. It is his opinion that the child is dead. If he said he saw Mr McCann committing the acts mentioned in the book there may well be a case for libel. He doesn’t have to preface every utterance that this is my opinion, it is implied.
-
it actually states incorrectly that the presumption of innocence does not apply to a civil case
Once again it doesn’t quite state that does it? It actually states that subsequent civil proceedings (mainly compensatory) to criminal proceedings, the presumption of innocence does not apply. The key word is subsequent. The meaning is totally different from your implication.
"Nevertheless, the Court of Justice of the European Union has decided that the principle of presumption of innocence does not apply to subsequent civil proceedings (mainly compensatory) to criminal proceedings, at risk of depriving the victim of her own right to accede to the courts and to be compensated (Cf. the judgements in Y vs Norvvay (56568/00) of 11/ 5/2003 and Diacendo vs Italy (124/04) of 05/07/2012)."
-
Well the appeal court and the Supreme Court ruled it was opinion. Neither you or I were there and privy to the information. Your second paragraph is still opinion. It was his opinion he could prove it with his hypothesis of the evidence. It is his opinion that the child is dead. If he said he saw Mr McCann committing the acts mentioned in the book there may well be a case for libel. He doesn’t have to preface every utterance that this is my opinion, it is implied.
To be fair, claiming he can prove something as a fact goes beyond mere opinion, surely?
-
To be fair, claiming he can prove something as a fact goes beyond mere opinion, surely?
Not really, its his opinion that he can prove it from his hypothesis of the evidence.
-
I can hardly wait for The ECHR. What a hoot that is going to be.
-
Once again it doesn’t quite state that does it? It actually states that subsequent civil proceedings (mainly compensatory) to criminal proceedings, the presumption of innocence does not apply. The key word is subsequent. The meaning is totally different from your implication.
"Nevertheless, the Court of Justice of the European Union has decided that the principle of presumption of innocence does not apply to subsequent civil proceedings (mainly compensatory) to criminal proceedings, at risk of depriving the victim of her own right to accede to the courts and to be compensated (Cf. the judgements in Y vi's Norvvay (56568/00) of 11/ 5/2003 and Diacendo vs Italy (124/04) of 05/07/2012)."
I'm fairly sure I know what it means.. Why do you think the SC mentioned it when afaiac it has no relavenve to this case.. Did they misunderstand it..
To me that can be the only explanation
-
I can hardly wait for The ECHR. What a hoot that is going to be.
I agree.. I've looked at a lot of law and past cases... The McCanns seem to have a very strong case
-
I'm fairly sure I know what it means.. Why do you think the SC mentioned it when afaiac it has no relavenve to this case.. Did they misunderstand it..
To me that can be the only explanation
You really are priceless., That you presume to know more about Portuguese legal matters than Portuguese Supreme Court judges in a Portuguese court. But I will humour you, why did they mention it then?
-
Not really, its his opinion that he can prove it from his hypothesis of the evidence.
So if he claimed he saw Gerry carrying Madeleine's body through PdL then that would be opinion too. When is making any statement not an opinion?
-
So if he claimed he saw Gerry carrying Madeleine's body through PdL then that would be opinion too. When is making any statement not an opinion?
How can it be opinion, he is stating a fact that he saw Gerry not a hypothesis from the archiving report that he based his book on. The book is opinion, the SC ruled that, you don’t have to agree with the verdict but please accept it happened.
-
I agree.. I've looked at a lot of law and past cases... The McCanns seem to have a very strong case
With my past experience I am pretty certain that I can rely on Supporters to behave with decorum.
-
You really are priceless., That you presume to know more about Portuguese legal matters than Portuguese Supreme Court judges in a Portuguese court. But I will humour you, why did they mention it then?
We all know far too much about Portuguese Supreme Court Judges.
-
With my past experience I am pretty certain that I can rely on Supporters to behave with decorum.
Let's hope they do, eh, given the depths plumbed thus far.
-
You really are priceless., That you presume to know more about Portuguese legal matters than Portuguese Supreme Court judges in a Portuguese court. But I will humour you, why did they mention it then?
Do you accept its not relevant to this case.. If it isn't then why mention it.
If the Mcccanns win then it looks as though I do understand the law better. Portugal success rate for accepted cases at the ECHR is 4 %.. That doesn't look too good
-
Do you accept its not relevant to this case.. If it isn't then why mention it.
If the Mcccanns win then it looks as though I do understand the law better. Portugal success rate for accepted cases at the ECHR is 4 %.. That doesn't look too good
So they're due a win. Positive signs.
-
How can it be opinion, he is stating a fact that he saw Gerry not a hypothesis from the archiving report that he based his book on. The book is opinion, the SC ruled that, you don’t have to agree with the verdict but please accept it happened.
Of course the book is opinion... But is it honest opinion and does that rule apply. In Portugal. The ECHR seem to have a similar principle to it but Amaral falls far short of it.
It may be opinion but he's stating it as fact. Opinion can be defamatory
-
Let's hope they do, eh, given the depths plumbed thus far.
Keep on digging.
-
How can it be opinion, he is stating a fact that he saw Gerry not a hypothesis from the archiving report that he based his book on. The book is opinion, the SC ruled that, you don’t have to agree with the verdict but please accept it happened.
He stated as fact that he could prove Madeleine died in the apartment did he not? So it's not an opinion. You could argue that if he says "I saw Gerry" it was only his opinion he saw Gerry and he may have been mistaken. How do you decide what is and isn't someone's opinion?
-
Do you accept its not relevant to this case.. If it isn't then why mention it.
If the Mcccanns win then it looks as though I do understand the law better. Portugal success rate for accepted cases at the ECHR is 4 %.. That doesn't look too good
I don’t know if its relevant or not, you raised it first, explain its irrelevance to me.
And if the McCanns win, then what happens?
Some context also, what is Greece's or Italy or even the UK's success rate at the ECHR?
-
He stated as fact that he could prove Madeleine died in the apartment did he not? So it's not an opinion. You could argue that if he says "I saw Gerry" it was only his opinion he saw Gerry and he may have been mistaken. How do you decide what is and isn't someone's opinion?
Well apparently HCW could tip the scales in their favour. They should get together and talk about all of these facets really.
-
I don’t know if its relevant or not, you raised it first, explain its irrelevance to me.
And if the McCanns win, then what happens?
Some context also, what is Greece's or Italy or even the UK's success rate at the ECHR?
They might get a few pennies thrown their way and Portugal will take account of the ruling when making future judgments.
-
He stated as fact that he could prove Madeleine died in the apartment did he not? So it's not an opinion. You could argue that if he says "I saw Gerry" it was only his opinion he saw Gerry and he may have been mistaken. How do you decide what is and isn't someone's opinion?
The book is purely hypothesis based on the evidence as listed in the archiving report, it is not fact. It is opinion. If you really have a problem with the ruling by the Supreme Court then take it up with them. I am only reporting the fact the appeal court and the SC found in Amaral's favour and decided that it wasn't libel.
-
Of course the book is opinion... But is it honest opinion and does that rule apply. In Portugal. The ECHR seem to have a similar principle to it but Amaral falls far short of it.
It may be opinion but he's stating it as fact. Opinion can be defamatory
How does Amaral fall far short of it? How can it be proved if its honest opinion or not?
The case has happened, the rule applied, twice.
-
I don’t know if its relevant or not, you raised it first, explain its irrelevance to me.
And if the McCanns win, then what happens?
Some context also, what is Greece's or Italy or even the UK's success rate at the ECHR?
#first i dont calim to know more re portuguese law than the Judges...thats an absurd suggestion by you...but I know judges make mistakes. portugalls success rate at teh ECHR compares very poorly to other developed countries.
As to what that line means...imo it doesnt maen taht the POI is not relavent on a civil case.
It means taht in a civil case subsequent to a criminal case where compensation is claimed...the POI doesn not apply. How clever of me to work taht out. So Barry George cant use the POI to claim compensation for his criminal case. that is not the situation here....so why did they refer to it.
If you look at the link I posted yesterday from the ECHR it mentions the POI in relation to defamation and article 8.
If the McCanns win...then armed with that judgement if amaral says the same again they can sue and pretty well be guaranteed of success. they may well evn be able to get thebook banned again with a new action
That IMO is why hes stopped hs defamation lately
-
How does Amaral fall far short of it? How can it be proved if its honest opinion or not?
The case has happened, the rule applied, twice.
Honest opinion as a defence is not just what a person happens to beleive...have you looked at what it entails
-
Honest opinion has to be based on true facts and the palintif has to prove those facts. Tavares de Almeida said at the trial that the main evidence against the McCanns was the dog alerts. So what facts did amaral rely on and has he proved they are true.
The dog alerts to cadaver and the dna in the car which matched Maddie...neither confirmed to be true...so his opinion is not supported
-
I can't believe that we are still arguing about this. Amaral was on the radar as being a dishonourable man way back in 2002 when he cheated his brother. Case proven in Court.
And then he was made Arguido on The 4th of May 2007 in the case of another missing child. A Case that he lost. He was convicted of Perjury.
How can anyone believe a word he says?
-
Honest opinion as a defence is not just what a person happens to beleive...have you looked at what it entails
what a person happens to beleive
True - like most of your posts you don't know more than anyone else... only that you believe you do.
GA was an investigating officer this is how he concluded his theories in a book.
As yet no one has proved him wrong.
-
I can't believe that we are still arguing about this. Amaral was on the radar as being a dishonourable man way back in 2002 when he cheated his brother. Case proven in Court.
And then he was made Arguido on The 4th of May 2007 in the case of another missing child. A Case that he lost. He was convicted of Perjury.
How can anyone believe a word he says?
The courts were not asked to judge his past conduct or his character. They were asked to decide if he defamed the McCanns and their children in his book, the DVD narrative or his interview with Correio da Manhã, published in the edition of July 24, 2008.
-
what a person happens to beleive
True - like most of your posts you don't know more than anyone else... only that you believe you do.
GA was an investigating officer this is how he concluded his theories in a book.
As yet no one has proved him wrong.
Im not really interested in what you happen to believe.
-
The courts were not asked to judge his past conduct or his character. They were asked to decide if he defamed the McCanns and their children in his book, the DVD narrative or his interview with Correio da Manhã, published in the edition of July 24, 2008.
They did not answer that question. The question they answered was taht amarals right to free speech was more important than the mccanns right not to be defamed
-
im not really interested in what you happen to believe
Snap
But in reality, what you believe is full of ifs buts and maybes and wait and see.
You only believe GA was wrong in his opinions.
All the years that have passed he has never been proved to be wrong.
The book still being there and not banned keeps alive the mccs could be involved IMO
Although I also have my own reasons they are involved -you have your reasons they are not.
Interested or not D we are both just simple posters on a forum with different beliefs ...that's all.
-
Snap
But in reality, what you believe is full of ifs buts and maybes and wait and see.
You only believe GA was wrong in his opinions.
All the years that have passed he has never been proved to be wrong.
The book still being there and not banned keeps alive the mccs could be involved IMO
Although I also have my own reasons they are same as your reasons they are not.
Interested or not D we are both just simple posters on a forum with different beliefs ...that's all.
I think you beleive a total load of rubbish. All the evidence amaral used to reach his conclusions are discredited. Hes a convicted liar who didnt understand d the evidence...and was sacked. The thread is re the ECHR. Ive looked at lots of ECHR law... regulations...and past cases balancing articles 10 and 8. Thats what I base my opinions on. Have you looked at anything.
You can describe yourself as a simple poster...
I'm a very well read and well informed poster
-
#first i dont calim to know more re portuguese law than the Judges...thats an absurd suggestion by you...but I know judges make mistakes. portugalls success rate at teh ECHR compares very poorly to other developed countries.
As to what that line means...imo it doesnt maen taht the POI is not relavent on a civil case.
It means taht in a civil case subsequent to a criminal case where compensation is claimed...the POI doesn not apply. How clever of me to work taht out. So Barry George cant use the POI to claim compensation for his criminal case. that is not the situation here....so why did they refer to it.
If you look at the link I posted yesterday from the ECHR it mentions the POI in relation to defamation and article 8.
If the McCanns win...then armed with that judgement if amaral says the same again they can sue and pretty well be guaranteed of success. they may well evn be able to get thebook banned again with a new action
That IMO is why hes stopped hs defamation lately
How clever of you to work it out ?? You literally just took what I posted (below)and repeated it !
“It actually states that subsequent civil proceedings (mainly compensatory) to criminal proceedings, the presumption of innocence does not apply.”
To me it is relevant as it shows that in law the presumption of innocence does not override all other principles of law, in some cases it is invalid. This is pertinent in this case. It is not sacrosanct.
The link you supplied doesn’t cover the principle of presumption of innocence in cases of defamation but in cases of criminal conduct.
You say if they win but you are aware that the ECHR rules quite frequently on breaches of Article 10. They tend to lean to the freedom of speech side rather than the protection of reputation. Article 8 really covers the right to a private life rather than purely defamation, not sure that applies in the McCann case. I am not sure it will ever reach the ECHR but time will tell. IMO
-
I think you beleive a total load of rubbish. All the evidence amaral used to reach his conclusions are discredited. Hes a convicted liar who didnt understand d the evidence...and was sacked. The thread is re the ECHR. Ive looked at lots of ECHR law... regulations...and past cases balancing articles 10 and 8. Thats what I base my opinions on. Have you looked at anything.
You can describe yourself as a simple poster...
I'm a very well read and well informed poster
I'm a very well read and well informed poster
Where have you got with it all know where.... And you are not going to, you don't know what happened.
And will have no bearing on the outcome of the ECHR.
It doesn't matter how well read and informed you are, what you post is only your opinion you know more than anyone else. .. Simple
-
How clever of you to work it out ?? You literally just took what I posted (below)and repeated it !
“It actually states that subsequent civil proceedings (mainly compensatory) to criminal proceedings, the presumption of innocence does not apply.”
To me it is relevant as it shows that in law the presumption of innocence does not override all other principles of law, in some cases it is invalid. This is pertinent in this case. It is not sacrosanct.
The link you supplied doesn’t cover the principle of presumption of innocence in cases of defamation but in cases of criminal conduct.
You say if they win but you are aware that the ECHR rules quite frequently on breaches of Article 10. They tend to lean to the freedom of speech side rather than the protection of reputation. Article 8 really covers the right to a private life rather than purely defamation, not sure that applies in the McCann case. I am not sure it will ever reach the ECHR but time will tell. IMO
Gunit has repeatedly claimed POI doesn't apply in civil cases based on this quote... Thanks for confirming she's wrong and I'm right.
I think you are wrong re defamation and article 8. I posted a whole list of past cases last year which supports my view. I posted one yesterday which shows an important point is the veracity of the claim Amarals claims are not supported by evidence. I can see no reason why it is not admissible.. The criteria are quite easy to understand.... And I dee every reason to think the McCanns will be successful.. Not just on blind faith but based on past cases
-
The courts were not asked to judge his past conduct or his character. They were asked to decide if he defamed the McCanns and their children in his book, the DVD narrative or his interview with Correio da Manhã, published in the edition of July 24, 2008.
What does that mean?
He did defame The McCanns, but his rights were deemed to be more important than theirs.
But one has to wonder why the decisions of The Court of the First Instance are so often overturned. I might ask why they bother to go there in the first place.
If you want my opinion, which I doubt, then I believe that it all goes back to the days of Salazar who was a Dictator when no one had the right to Free Speech. So those who reinvented themselves after the Two Revolutions decided that this was the way to go.
-
It all seems pretty pointless claiming that the McCanns have a good case when it hasn't even got to the stage where it is selected to be heard by the Court .
-
Why do you need to continually make pathetic personal attacks... What is your problem. What business is it of yours how much time I have on my hands.. I quite like having lots of time on my hands.. Your continued personal ad homs are making you looked a little obsessed
Obsessed lol what with ....why not just ignore what I have to say instead of saying you are not interested in what I say ...that really upset me. 8)><(
So I have only been pointing out we are no different sorry D if that has upset you,
You should wait really rather than get upfront... to see if the mccs actually make it to the ECHR first before you predict what will happen,
-
Gunit has repeatedly claimed POI doesn't apply in civil cases based on this quote... Thanks for confirming she's wrong and I'm right.
I think you are wrong re defamation and article 8. I posted a whole list of past cases last year which supports my view. I posted one yesterday which shows an important point is the veracity of the claim Amarals claims are not supported by evidence. I can see no reason why it is not admissible.. The criteria are quite easy to understand.... And I dee every reason to think the McCanns will be successful.. Not just on blind faith but based on past cases
I didn’t confirm anything, just pointed out that you misinterpreted the SC report in that you thought it said that, and I quote “it actually states incorrectly that the presumption of innocence does not apply to a civil case”. It doesn’t say that. We have now clarified that, haven’t we.
There is a legal difference between civil and criminal law in the principle of presumption of Innocence in English law as you can read below.
“Under many civil law systems, including the English common law, in criminal proceedings the accused is presumed innocent unless the prosecution presents a high level of evidence as described above. In civil proceedings (like breach of contract) the defendant is initially presumed correct unless the plaintiff presents a moderate level of evidence and thus switches the burden of proof to the defendant.”
-
What does that mean?
He did defame The McCanns, but his rights were deemed to be more important than theirs.
But one has to wonder why the decisions of The Court of the First Instance are so often overturned. I might ask why they bother to go there in the first place.
If you want my opinion, which I doubt, then I believe that it all goes back to the days of Salazar who was a Dictator when no one had the right to Free Speech. So those who reinvented themselves after the Two Revolutions decided that this was the way to go.
I thought it was quite clear what it meant. You may hold the opinion that Amaral defamed the McCanns, but it's not a legal fact because the appropriate legal bodies didn't agree with your opinion. If they had he would have had to pay damages to the McCanns and court costs to the Portuguese courts. That's the reality you need to accept imo.
-
If Brueckner is charged with Madeleine's murder before McCanns' appeal to ECHR is heard, what effect will that have, if any, on the judge's decision? Truth is an absolute defence.
-
If Brueckner is charged with Madeleine's murder before McCanns' appeal to ECHR is heard, what effect will that have, if any, on the judge's decision? Truth is an absolute defence.
None at all. IMO . The case isn't about Madeleine.
-
I didn’t confirm anything, just pointed out that you misinterpreted the SC report in that you thought it said that, and I quote “it actually states incorrectly that the presumption of innocence does not apply to a civil case”. It doesn’t say that. We have now clarified that, haven’t we.
There is a legal difference between civil and criminal law in the principle of presumption of Innocence in English law as you can read below.
“Under many civil law systems, including the English common law, in criminal proceedings the accused is presumed innocent unless the prosecution presents a high level of evidence as described above. In civil proceedings (like breach of contract) the defendant is initially presumed correct unless the plaintiff presents a moderate level of evidence and thus switches the burden of proof to the defendant.”
Are you denying the McCanns were entitled to the POI during the libel case
-
If Brueckner is charged with Madeleine's murder before McCanns' appeal to ECHR is heard, what effect will that have, if any, on the judge's decision? Truth is an absolute defence.
I agree none....amaral will be in just as much trouble whatever happens...imo
-
If Brueckner is charged with Madeleine's murder before McCanns' appeal to ECHR is heard, what effect will that have, if any, on the judge's decision? Truth is an absolute defence.
none imo, though it would be rather ironic. It seems to me from what is being said here today that you can legally write a book claiming it is your honestly held opinion that someone faked an abduction and disposed of their child's body even if it is subsequently proven to be untrue. Which is nice.
-
I thought it was quite clear what it meant. You may hold the opinion that Amaral defamed the McCanns, but it's not a legal fact because the appropriate legal bodies didn't agree with your opinion. If they had he would have had to pay damages to the McCanns and court costs to the Portuguese courts. That's the reality you need to accept imo.
I don't need to accept anything.
But can you tell me why The Court of The First Instance ruled in favour of The McCanns? All stupid, are they? No real idea of Portuguese Law? What a waste of time they appear to be.
-
Are you denying the McCanns were entitled to the POI during the libel case
No. Have I ever said that they weren't.
The SC report lays out several times that they had the the right to presumption of innocence. Why do think that I have denied it?
-
none imo, though it would be rather ironic. It seems to me from what is being said here today that you can legally write a book claiming it is your honestly held opinion that someone faked an abduction and disposed of their child's body even if it is subsequently proven to be untrue. Which is nice.
You can write such a book as long as its based on solid evidence.. That's what sceptics are missing.
Amarals book isn't and that's one of the things the ECHR will look at... The veracity of the claims
-
I don't need to accept anything.
But can you tell me why The Court of The First Instance ruled in favour of The McCanns? All stupid, are they? No real idea of Portuguese Law? What a waste of time they appear to be.
True, denial of the truth is your prerogative.
The court of the first instance had to decide between two rights and it did so by restricting Amaral's right to freedom of expression. The judge said;
Goncalo Amaral, although retired on 1st July 2008, did not enjoy, on the following July 24, in respect of the results of the criminal investigation released on the 21st of the same month and year, a large and full freedom of expression. This freedom was conditioned by the functions he had, functions that imposed him special duties that traverse the status of retirement, including the duty of reserve.
Page 44 http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=6307.0
Amaral appealed, and the Appeal court judges said;
it is hardly understandable that a civil servant, even more a retired one, should carry on his silence and reserve duties, thus limiting the exercise of his right to opinion as to the interpretation of facts already made public by the judicial authority and widely discussed (actually largely at the instigation of the protagonists themselves) in national and international media.
Page 16 https://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/Decision_19_04_2016.htm
-
True, denial of the truth is your prerogative.
The court of the first instance had to decide between two rights and it did so by restricting Amaral's right to freedom of expression. The judge said;
Goncalo Amaral, although retired on 1st July 2008, did not enjoy, on the following July 24, in respect of the results of the criminal investigation released on the 21st of the same month and year, a large and full freedom of expression. This freedom was conditioned by the functions he had, functions that imposed him special duties that traverse the status of retirement, including the duty of reserve.
Page 44 http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=6307.0
Amaral appealed, and the Appeal court judges said;
it is hardly understandable that a civil servant, even more a retired one, should carry on his silence and reserve duties, thus limiting the exercise of his right to opinion as to the interpretation of facts already made public by the judicial authority and widely discussed (actually largely at the instigation of the protagonists themselves) in national and international media.
Page 16 https://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/Decision_19_04_2016.htm
Truth is not yours to decide upon. Nor do you have a right to tell me what I should think.
Amaral used information that he supposedly coordinated and then twisted to suit his agenda. His Mate wrote a book so he decided to write a book. Both of them were and are crooks. And this is who you want to believe. This is indeed a sorry tale.
-
A reminder of the restrictions placed on Freedom of Expression, as per ECHR Article 10:-
https://www.equalityhumanrights.com/en/human-rights-act/article-10-freedom-expression#:~:text=Article%2010%20of%20the%20Human%20Rights%20Act%3A%20Freedom%20of%20expression&text=Everyone%20has%20the%20right%20to,authority%20and%20regardless%20of%20frontiers.
*snipped*
2. The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.
---------------------------------------
I'm not sure which part of this the SCP failed to understand & appreciate.
-
A reminder of the restrictions placed on Freedom of Expression, as per ECHR Article 10:-
https://www.equalityhumanrights.com/en/human-rights-act/article-10-freedom-expression#:~:text=Article%2010%20of%20the%20Human%20Rights%20Act%3A%20Freedom%20of%20expression&text=Everyone%20has%20the%20right%20to,authority%20and%20regardless%20of%20frontiers.
*snipped*
2. The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.
---------------------------------------
I'm not sure which part of this the SCP failed to understand & appreciate.
When the ECHR rule we'll know if you are right.
-
I can't believe that we are still arguing about this. Amaral was on the radar as being a dishonourable man way back in 2002 when he cheated his brother. Case proven in Court.
And then he was made Arguido on The 4th of May 2007 in the case of another missing child. A Case that he lost. He was convicted of Perjury.
How can anyone believe a word he says?
Then his book is not to be believed and the search would not be hindered.
-
Truth is not yours to decide upon. Nor do you have a right to tell me what I should think.
Amaral used information that he supposedly coordinated and then twisted to suit his agenda. His Mate wrote a book so he decided to write a book. Both of them were and are crooks. And this is who you want to believe. This is indeed a sorry tale.
Amaral used information from the publicly available case files, including the conclusions of the investigation up until September 2007. The courts decided that the facts he used in his book were indeed mostly present in the files.
Using those facts he offered his opinion about what happened. It doesn't matter whether people believe his opinion, what the case was about was whether he libelled the McCanns or not by publishing his opinion.
-
Amaral used information from the publicly available case files, including the conclusions of the investigation up until September 2007. The courts decided that the facts he used in his book were indeed mostly present in the files.
Using those facts he offered his opinion about what happened. It doesn't matter whether people believe his opinion, what the case was about was whether he libelled the McCanns or not by publishing his opinion.
The case was about whether amarals right to free speech outweighed the McCanns right to reputation
-
The case was about whether amarals right to free speech outweighed the McCanns right to reputation
Are you saying the ECHR will be using the same criteria? It seems to me to be a bad precedent if the case is not overturned. Will the police officers involved have the right to write a book about the suspects in an unproven case suggesting if the investigation went on, the suspects would have been found guilty, in their opinion, and that a guilty verdict would be the outcome?
-
How clever of you to work it out ?? You literally just took what I posted (below)and repeated it !
“It actually states that subsequent civil proceedings (mainly compensatory) to criminal proceedings, the presumption of innocence does not apply.”
To me it is relevant as it shows that in law the presumption of innocence does not override all other principles of law, in some cases it is invalid. This is pertinent in this case. It is not sacrosanct.
The link you supplied doesn’t cover the principle of presumption of innocence in cases of defamation but in cases of criminal conduct.
You say if they win but you are aware that the ECHR rules quite frequently on breaches of Article 10. They tend to lean to the freedom of speech side rather than the protection of reputation. Article 8 really covers the right to a private life rather than purely defamation, not sure that applies in the McCann case. I am not sure it will ever reach the ECHR but time will tell. IMO
These Articles were used in the case;
Universal Declaration of Human Rights
Article 12, Article 16 (6)
European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms
Article 10 (1) & (2), Article 6 (2)
Afaik other Articles can't be used in an application to the ECHR because they weren't raised in the national courts.
-
Are you saying the ECHR will be using the same criteria? It seems to me to be a bad precedent if the case is not overturned. Will the police officers involved have the right to write a book about the suspects in an unproven case suggesting if the investigation went on, the suspects would have been found guilty, in their opinion, and that a guilty verdict would be the outcome?
It would seem that in Portugal at least that is precisely what any ex-cop could do. Trial by paperback.
-
Are you saying the ECHR will be using the same criteria? It seems to me to be a bad precedent if the case is not overturned. Will the police officers involved have the right to write a book about the suspects in an unproven case suggesting if the investigation went on, the suspects would have been found guilty, in their opinion, and that a guilty verdict would be the outcome?
The ECHR will be looking at what they think is more important and from what I've read it will be right to reputation in this case because Amaral claims are not based on evidence.
In the past 55 yrs or so there have been 309 judgements re Portugal and of those in only 13 cases have there been no violation... The Portuguese seem to get it wrong regularly
-
These Articles were used in the case;
Universal Declaration of Human Rights
Article 12, Article 16 (6)
European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms
Article 10 (1) & (2), Article 6 (2)
Afaik other Articles can't be used in an application to the ECHR because they weren't raised in the national courts.
Thats why the McCanns highlighted POI and right to reputation at the SC
-
How clever of you to work it out ?? You literally just took what I posted (below)and repeated it !
“It actually states that subsequent civil proceedings (mainly compensatory) to criminal proceedings, the presumption of innocence does not apply.”
To me it is relevant as it shows that in law the presumption of innocence does not override all other principles of law, in some cases it is invalid. This is pertinent in this case. It is not sacrosanct.
The link you supplied doesn’t cover the principle of presumption of innocence in cases of defamation but in cases of criminal conduct.
You say if they win but you are aware that the ECHR rules quite frequently on breaches of Article 10. They tend to lean to the freedom of speech side rather than the protection of reputation. Article 8 really covers the right to a private life rather than purely defamation, not sure that applies in the McCann case. I am not sure it will ever reach the ECHR but time will tell. IMO
I provided a link to an ECHR publication on article 8. It has a section on defamation which raises the importance of the POI in defemation cases involving accusations of criminal behaviour
-
I provided a link to an ECHR publication on article 8. It has a section on defamation which raises the importance of the POI in defemation cases involving accusations of criminal behaviour
Article 8 wasn't used in the national case so can't be raised in the application to the ECHR imo.
-
It would seem that in Portugal at least that is precisely what any ex-cop could do. Trial by paperback.
Well, maybe that is preferred for foreigners. One advantage, that I see, is that the cost of housing the offenders is not on the taxpayers. Plus the foreign exchange brought in from the book sales keeps the country afloat.
And besides, the country can basically ignore any adverse finding by the ECHR.
-
Article 8 wasn't used in the national case so can't be raised in the application to the ECHR imo.
What do you mean it wasn't used... The case concerned the right to reputation.. That's covered by article 8
-
What do you mean it wasn't used... The case concerned the right to reputation.. That's covered by article 8
It was never quoted, so cannot be raised. Only Articles 10 and 6 were quoted in the case.
-
Article 8 wasn't used in the national case so can't be raised in the application to the ECHR imo.
Page 50
... harmonization of the various rights) and in the European Convention on Human Rights
(art.8° and 10°).
-
It was never quoted, so cannot be raised. Only Articles 10 and 6 were quoted in the case.
As long as the point is raised in substance that's all that matters... Not my opinion.. Fact
-
As long as the point is raised in substance that's all that matters... Not my opinion.. Fact
This is what suggests to me that violations of Article 8 can't be included in an application to the ECHR unless it was mentioned at first instance, which it wasn't in my opinion. I found mention only of Articles 6 and 10.
"The principle of subsidiarity requires that national courts must have the opportunity to prevent, detect
and redress the alleged violation(s) themselves. If they fail to provide redress, an application may be made to
the Court. Violations of Articles of the Convention must be pleaded substantively at first instance, with specific
reference to the applicable Convention Articles. It is essential to plead those same Convention arguments on
appeal, then to the highest national court, or any other constitutional court or court of cassation which acts as a
court of last resort."
https://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/Q_A_Lawyers_Guide_ECHR_ENG.pdf
-
This is what suggests to me that violations of Article 8 can't be included in an application to the ECHR unless it was mentioned at first instance, which it wasn't in my opinion. I found mention only of Articles 6 and 10.
"The principle of subsidiarity requires that national courts must have the opportunity to prevent, detect
and redress the alleged violation(s) themselves. If they fail to provide redress, an application may be made to
the Court. Violations of Articles of the Convention must be pleaded substantively at first instance, with specific
reference to the applicable Convention Articles. It is essential to plead those same Convention arguments on
appeal, then to the highest national court, or any other constitutional court or court of cassation which acts as a
court of last resort."
https://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/Q_A_Lawyers_Guide_ECHR_ENG.pdf
I was under the impression the violations of the convention had been successfully argued in the first instance court, where the McCanns were awarded damages and the judge banned Amaral's book & the documentary. It's important to remember that Amaral, not the McCanns, was the person who appealed against the first decision.
-
I was under the impression the violations of the convention had been successfully argued in the first instance court, where the McCanns were awarded damages and the judge banned Amaral's book & the documentary. It's important to remember that Amaral, not the McCanns, was the person who appealed against the first decision.
But the parents applied to the Supreme Court and it’s their lack of redress, as they see it, there that allowed them to make an application to the ECHR.
All previous decisions, IMO, are unimportant at this point.
-
But the parents applied to the Supreme Court and it’s their lack of redress, as they see it, there that allowed them to make an application to the ECHR.
All previous decisions, IMO, are unimportant at this point.
They're not, according to G-Unit, although it's apparent from the various judgements that decisions were reached after consideration & reference to the rights afforded by Articles 8 & 10 of the Convention.
-
They're not, according to G-Unit, although it's apparent from the various judgements that decisions were reached after consideration & reference to the rights afforded by Articles 8 & 10 of the Convention.
Time will tell I suppose.
-
https://www.google.com/search?q=echr+admissibility+requirements&oq=admissibility+echr&aqs=chrome.3.69i57j0i22i30l4.11638j1j7&client=ms-android-huawei-rev1&sourceid=chrome-mobile&ie=UTF-8
Complaint raised in substance
87. It is not necessary for the Convention right to be explicitly raised in domestic proceedings
provided that the complaint is raised “at least in substance” (Castells v. Spain, § 32; Ahmet Sadik
v. Greece, § 33; Fressoz and Roire v. France [GC], § 38; Azinas v. Cyprus [GC], §§ 40-41;
Page 26 of this document from the ECHR explains the point..
It is sufficient for the point to be raised in substance as it was in the first instance. No need for the article number to be quoted
-
It was never quoted, so cannot be raised. Only Articles 10 and 6 were quoted in the case.
It can be raised as confirmed by the link I have provided. the important point being taht the domestic court has had the opprtunity to deal with the issue.
There can be no doubt portugal was aware and has addressed the issue of right to reputation vs free speech
-
I was under the impression the violations of the convention had been successfully argued in the first instance court, where the McCanns were awarded damages and the judge banned Amaral's book & the documentary. It's important to remember that Amaral, not the McCanns, was the person who appealed against the first decision.
The points raised by Amaral in his appeal were;
That the reserve attached to his previous occupation could not be used as the first judge did, to limit his right to freedom of expression.
That the McCanns themselves abandoned their right to privacy, image and reputation by interacting with the media, making them and the case famous around the world and opening the door to discussion of the case, including opinions opposed to their own.
That the McCann's right to be treated correctly in judicial processes could not be damaged by releasing details of the facts of the investigation as they had been released by the Public Prosecutor.
That the McCanns failed to show a causal link between his conduct and the damages they claimed to have suffered. In fact everything they described they felt after the book, the DVD and the interview they had already been feeling before that, due to the disappearance of their daughter.
-
Surely this is an example of how can a book cause more distress than losing a daughter.
All the symptoms they describe is what you would expect from the parents of a missing child.
Page 39
81. As a result of the defendant Gonçalo Amaral's statements in the book, the documentary and interview with the CdM, the claimants Kate and Gerald McCann felt anger, despair, anguish, worry, and were suffering insomnia and lack of appetite (n°13)
-
Surely this is an example of how can a book cause more distress than losing a daughter.
All the symptoms they describe is what you would expect from the parents of a missing child.
Page 39
81. As a result of the defendant Gonçalo Amaral's statements in the book, the documentary and interview with the CdM, the claimants Kate and Gerald McCann felt anger, despair, anguish, worry, and were suffering insomnia and lack of appetite (n°13)
No. It's an example of how a book can add to the distress and anguish of parents who are already suffering from the loss of their child.
-
No. It's an example of how a book can add to the distress and anguish of parents who are already suffering from the loss of their child.
No Nothing can be worse than a loss of a child
-
No Nothing can be worse than a loss of a child
I think you have missed the point and are stating your opinion as fact
-
No. It's an example of how a book can add to the distress and anguish of parents who are already suffering from the loss of their child.
According to the first judgement, however, the damages claimed were not proved to have been caused by his actions. The McCanns claimed he caused them, not that he added to them.
FACTS NOT PROVEN
i) that because of the defendant Goncalo Amaral's statements in the book, the documentary and the interview with the Correio da Manha, the Judicial Police had ceased to collect information and to investigate the disappearance of Madeleine McCann,
j) that because of the defendant Goncalo Amaral's statements in the book, the documentary and the interview with the Correio da Manha, the claimants Kate and Gerald McCann find themselves completely destroyed, from a point of vie moral, social, ethical, sentimental, family, far beyond the pain that the absence of his daughter causes them,
k) that in particular because of the defendant Goncalo Amaral's statements in the book, the documentary and the interview with the Correio da Manha, the claimant Kate McCann finds herself immersed in a serious and deep depression, which has already made her declare publicly I'd like to be in a coma, to relieve pain,
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=6307.msg239344#msg239344
-
I reckon that if you are already at rock bottom over the loss of your child, then you can't go any lower.
-
According to the first judgement, however, the damages claimed were not proved to have been caused by his actions. The McCanns claimed he caused them, not that he added to them.
FACTS NOT PROVEN
i) that because of the defendant Goncalo Amaral's statements in the book, the documentary and the interview with the Correio da Manha, the Judicial Police had ceased to collect information and to investigate the disappearance of Madeleine McCann,
j) that because of the defendant Goncalo Amaral's statements in the book, the documentary and the interview with the Correio da Manha, the claimants Kate and Gerald McCann find themselves completely destroyed, from a point of vie moral, social, ethical, sentimental, family, far beyond the pain that the absence of his daughter causes them,
k) that in particular because of the defendant Goncalo Amaral's statements in the book, the documentary and the interview with the Correio da Manha, the claimant Kate McCann finds herself immersed in a serious and deep depression, which has already made her declare publicly I'd like to be in a coma, to relieve pain,
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=6307.msg239344#msg239344
This has nothing to do with the ECHR claim...
-
I reckon that if you are already at rock bottom over the loss of your child, then you can't go any lower.
No but what happens is as time goes by things do get better. However if you are continually harassed recovery is delayed
-
I think you have missed the point and are stating your opinion as fact
No, you have missed the point.
the claimants Kate and Gerald McCann felt anger, despair, anguish, worry, and were suffering insomnia and lack of appetite (n°13)
What point are you trying to make seems its they had resigned to the fact of losing Maddie not knowing what happened to her imo ...but the book started it all up again.
How can you blame a book for symptoms they already should have had.
Seems SC thought the same anyway.
-
No Nothing can be worse than a loss of a child
Yes it can. Have a child go missing and then be accused of lying about the circumstances, hiding the body, digging it up and transporting the mouldering corpse weeks later in the back of the car, all the while not knowing if your child is actually still alive and findable but knowing that the police have long since given up looking for her. THAT is worse.
-
No but what happens is as time goes by things do get better. However if you are continually harassed recovery is delayed
FGS it was a year after Maddie went missing so it seems you think they were getting over it.
Yet they are still not over the book after thirteen years .WOW
-
No, you have missed the point.
the claimants Kate and Gerald McCann felt anger, despair, anguish, worry, and were suffering insomnia and lack of appetite (n°13)
What point are you trying to make seems its they had resigned to the fact of losing Maddie not knowing what happened to her imo ...but the book started it all up again.
How can you blame a book for symptoms they already should have had.
Seems SC thought the same anyway.
Imagine one of your kids disappears. You have no idea what happened to them. You are anguished, inconsolable, can't sleep, can't eat, in the pits of despair. Weeks and months go by. You feel no less anguished but you have learned to live with the torment and are functioning again as best you can. Then, the ex-cop who was working on the case decides to write a book about the disappearance placing you as the villains of the piece, the person who made your child disappear, who covered up her death. Are you claiming that his actions would not trouble you in the slightest? That as it climbed the best sellers list and the author was appearing on TV adding further suspicions and allegations that it would all be water off a duck's back for you? Because if you say it would not add in any way to your anguish I think you are not being very honest.
-
FGS it was a year after Maddie went missing so it seems you think they were getting over it.
Yet they are still not over the book after thirteen years .WOW
Not sure why I bother responding to your posts. The thread topic is thrECHR
-
Note to mods the topic is the appeal to the ECHR... Or is it to be just another McCann bashing thread.
-
Yes it can. Have a child go missing and then be accused of lying about the circumstances, hiding the body, digging it up and transporting the mouldering corpse weeks later in the back of the car, all the while not knowing if your child is actually still alive and findable but knowing that the police have long since given up looking for her. THAT is worse.
THAT is worse.
Nothing can be worse than allegedly fiding your 3-year-old child gone.
That could only be IMO if you hadn't found your 3-year-old child gone.
-
This has nothing to do with the ECHR claim...
It demonstrates why the higher Portuguese courts overturned the judgement handed down by the judge of the first instance. They agreed with what Amaral said. His freedom of expression was not limited, he didn't interfere with the McCann's private lives or reputations, he didn't endanger their right to the presumption of innocence, and he wasn't proved to have caused any other damage to them.
-
It demonstrates why the higher Portuguese courts overturned the judgement handed down by the judge of the first instance. They agreed with what Amaral said. His freedom of expression was not limited, he didn't interfere with the McCann's private lives or reputations, he didn't endanger their right to the presumption of innocence, and he wasn't proved to have caused any other damage to them.
The ECHR claim can only be concerned with the balance between articles 8 and 10 and the POI. Nothing else.. Nothing to do with the McCanns being affected and depressed by the book... I thought you would realise that
-
Note to mods the topic is the appeal to the ECHR... Or is it to be just another McCann bashing thread.
It is about the ECHR SC PAGE 39 regarding reputation ...what you D brought up.
It seems again if it doesn't fit your agenda ... anything to do with mcc bashing.
-
THAT is worse.
Nothing can be worse than allegedly fiding your 3-year-old child gone.
That could only be IMO if you hadn't found your 3-year-old child gone.
I have demonstrated how it could be worse and you have ignored it which IMO demonstrates evasion on your part or a complete lack of understanding.
-
What seems to be being argued here is that because the McCanns have claimed to suffer the worst anguish imaginable (losing a child) it is impossible to add to their suffering because their "sufferometer" is already at the top of the red. That is patent ballcocks imo. What you're saying is you can do anything hurthful at all you want to these people and it won't count because they're already at the limits of their agony.
-
The ECHR claim can only be concerned with the balance between articles 8 and 10 and the POI. Nothing else.. Nothing to do with the McCanns being affected and depressed by the book... I thought you would realise that
Article 8 is not involved, it is about Article 10 (2), particularly the bolded bit;
The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.
Article 6 describes the POI, which the McCanns claim Amaral interfered with.
-
Article 8 is not involved, it is about Article 10 (2), particularly the bolded bit;
The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.
Article 6 describes the POI, which the McCanns claim Amaral interfered with.
That isn't what the SC of Portugal say... Do you know better
Defamation is covered by 8...ive provided enough cites to show that
-
It is about the ECHR SC PAGE 39 regarding reputation ...what you D brought up.
It seems again if it doesn't fit your agenda ... anything to do with mcc bashing.
The ECHR action concerns how amarals book and video damaged their reputation.. Nothing else
-
Imagine one of your kids disappears. You have no idea what happened to them. You are anguished, inconsolable, can't sleep, can't eat, in the pits of despair. Weeks and months go by. You feel no less anguished but you have learned to live with the torment and are functioning again as best you can. Then, the ex-cop who was working on the case decides to write a book about the disappearance placing you as the villains of the piece, the person who made your child disappear, who covered up her death. Are you claiming that his actions would not trouble you in the slightest? That as it climbed the best sellers list and the author was appearing on TV adding further suspicions and allegations that it would all be water off a duck's back for you? Because if you say it would not add in any way to your anguish I think you are not being very honest.
OK, anger you could accept. spose.
Insomnia lack of appitite etc I would say part and parcel of grief losing your child whatever the circumstances.
-
What seems to be being argued here is that because the McCanns have claimed to suffer the worst anguish imaginable (losing a child) it is impossible to add to their suffering because their "sufferometer" is already at the top of the red. That is patent ballcocks imo. What you're saying is you can do anything hurthful at all you want to these people and it won't count because they're already at the limits of their agony.
What was claimed was that the McCanns lives, feelings, mental states or whatever worsened following the release of the book, DVD and interview. What was not available was any proof of that.
-
I have demonstrated how it could be worse and you have ignored it which IMO demonstrates evasion on your part or a complete lack of understanding.
Not lack of understanding at all VS.
Just my opinion vs your opinion,
-
What was claimed was that the McCanns lives, feelings, mental states or whatever worsened following the release of the book, DVD and interview. What was not available was any proof of that.
nothing to do with the ECHR
-
The ECHR action concerns how amarals book and video damaged their reputation.. Nothing else
Don't you think their reputation was already damaged through acts of there own IMO
The book was written mainly on facts from the investigation.
The ECHR it seems though their reputation had already been damaged imo
-
Don't you think their reputation was already damaged through acts of there own IMO
The book was written mainly on facts from the investigation.
The ECHR it seems though their reputation had already been damaged imo
nothing to do with the ECHR....the ECHR is concerned specifically with the contents of the book and video
-
What was claimed was that the McCanns lives, feelings, mental states or whatever worsened following the release of the book, DVD and interview. What was not available was any proof of that.
Impossible to prove, though OBVIOUSLY it would. Why on earth would it not?
-
OK, anger you could accept. spose.
Insomnia lack of appitite etc I would say part and parcel of grief losing your child whatever the circumstances.
So it wouldn't distress you or cause you any anxiety to have an ex-cop make a living out of publicly accusing you of committing such heinous acts? You'd just feel a bit cross?
-
nothing to do with the ECHR....the ECHR is concerned specifically with the contents of the book and video
the ECHR is concerned specifically with the contents of the book and video
Well right now - you don't know whether the ECHR are interested or not
.
Let's face it it could be thrown out ...so its wrong to claim your post as a fact.
-
the ECHR is concerned specifically with the contents of the book and video
Well right now - you don't know whether the ECHR are interested or not
.
Let's face it it could be thrown out ...so its wrong to claim your post as a fact.
read the 123 pages on admissibility and let me know why you think it wont be admitted
-
So it wouldn't distress you or cause you any anxiety to have an ex-cop make a living out of publicly accusing you of committing such heinous acts? You'd just feel a bit cross?
Anger isn't a bit cross.
If I was innocent of any wrongdoing ...I would have more on my mind than what a cop thought.
-
read the 123 pages on admissibility and let me know why you think it wont be admitted
No thanks.
I will wait to see if it accepted or not by ECHR....pointless speculating when "you" don't know the outcome YET.
-
Of course they were upset. To misquote Uhtred, "image is everything" to the McCanns. IMO
-
As most of you know, I lost my first born, my son aged 9, to brain cancer. I know what it means to lose a dearly loved part of yourself and your family, but I can't begin to imagine what it must be like to lose a child and not know what is/has happened to her/him. To desperately worry incessantly about what might be happening to her/him. They were beginning to climb out of their depression thanks to support from almost everyone + working hard at finding Madeleine (i.e. Hope at finding her)
As someone who has suffered one fairly major and one minor breakdowns, I can assure you that it is "the straw that breaks the camels back". One can be coping well with a multiple problems situation when something extra suddenly blows the lot and one drops into breakdown.
This "straw" from Amaral was a mighty one and had several aspects to it:
1) Insinuating that The Mccanns were bad parents
2) Insinuating that they killed Madeleine
3) Stating that Madeleine was dead
4) ETC.
It appeared that it was intended to break the amazingly strong parents and worse still to stop people searching for Madeleine. Whose going to burst their guts searching for a dead child?
And this came from the top cop on the case, so people were going to listen to it. All the already fragile Mccanns hopes smashed in one grubby money making book of lies.
Not only did it defame them but it also told lies seemingly designed both to demean The Mccanns (in a major way), to undermine the search, and stop people looking for Madeleine
Of course it damaged them immensely. Sorry Kizzy, but it is absurd to think anything else IMO from experience
What an evil thing to do. And one has to ask why? There has to be a reason
-
The ECHR action concerns how amarals book and video damaged their reputation.. Nothing else
He repeated what others had already said, as the first judge noticed;
the thesis that the minor died accidentally in the apartment and that this fact was hidden by her parents, who spread and fed, in order to deceive, an hypothesis of abduction, is not new, there's nothing new neither in the book, in the interview or in the documentary.
This theory of the facts comes from the own investigation, it is shaped in the chief inspector Tavares de Almeida's report (No. 9), it was an avenue pursued by the investigation (paragraphs 10 and 11), it determined the constitution of the claimants Gerald and Kate McCann as arguidos and was put within the reach of the media, and soon of the general public through a copy of the inquest (paragraphs 65 and 66) .
Page 34 http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=6307.0
So how come she ruled for the McCanns? By saying that Amaral's freedom of expression was limited by his status as a retired PJ officer.
-
Anger isn't a bit cross.
If I was innocent of any wrongdoing ...I would have more on my mind than what a cop thought.
I think they expected Amaral to fold at just the thought of an expensive court case as several individuals and newspapers had already done. I often wonder if they had known how their case would actually promote his book whether the parents would have taken the same course. The whole legal process seems to have frustrated and upset them immensely and, after all the money spent from the fund, offered nothing but more damage to their reputations.
-
As most of you know, I lost my first born, my son aged 9, to brain cancer. I know what it means to lose a dearly loved part of yourself and your family, but I can't begin to imagine what it must be like to lose a child and not know what is/has happened to her/him. To desperately worry incessantly about what might be happening to her/him. They were beginning to climb out of their depression thanks to support from almost everyone + working hard at finding Madeleine (i.e. Hope at finding her)
As someone who has suffered one fairly major and one minor breakdowns, I can assure you that it is "the straw that breaks the camels back". One can be coping well with a multiple problems situation when something extra suddenly blows the lot and one drops into breakdown.
This "straw" from Amaral was a mighty one and had several aspects to it:
1) Insinuating that The Mccanns were bad parents
2) Insinuating that they killed Madeleine
3) Stating that Madeleine was dead
4) ETC.
It appeared that it was intended to break the amazingly strong parents and worse still to stop people searching for Madeleine. Whose going to burst their guts searching for a dead child?
And this came from the top cop on the case, so people were going to listen to it. All the already fragile Mccanns hopes smashed in one grubby money making book of lies.
Not only did it defame them but it also told lies seemingly designed both to demean The Mccanns (in a major way), to undermine the search, and stop people looking for Madeleine
Of course it damaged them immensely. Sorry Kizzy, but it is absurd to think anything else IMO from experience
What an evil thing to do. And one has to ask why? There has to be a reason
It may well be that Amaral's book, DVD and interview made their suffering worse, but they failed to prove it. Where is the evidence of how things changed after the release of those items?
The judge dismissed their claim that Amaral's actions affected the search for their daughter, by the way. She ordered payment to the parents for the harm they suffered, nothing else.
-
I think they expected Amaral to fold at just the thought of an expensive court case as several individuals and newspapers had already done. I often wonder if they had known how their case would actually promote his book whether the parents would have taken the same course. The whole legal process seems to have frustrated and upset them immensely and, after all the money spent from the fund, offered nothing but more damage to their reputations.
It certainly served to educate people that, despite the McCann's insistence that it was a fact, the abduction was just a theory and that others existed.
-
As most of you know, I lost my first born, my son aged 9, to brain cancer. I know what it means to lose a dearly loved part of yourself and your family, but I can't begin to imagine what it must be like to lose a child and not know what is/has happened to her/him. To desperately worry incessantly about what might be happening to her/him. They were beginning to climb out of their depression thanks to support from almost everyone + working hard at finding Madeleine (i.e. Hope at finding her)
As someone who has suffered one fairly major and one minor breakdowns, I can assure you that it is "the straw that breaks the camels back". One can be coping well with a multiple problems situation when something extra suddenly blows the lot and one drops into breakdown.
This "straw" from Amaral was a mighty one and had several aspects to it:
1) Insinuating that The Mccanns were bad parents
2) Insinuating that they killed Madeleine
3) Stating that Madeleine was dead
4) ETC.
It appeared that it was intended to break the amazingly strong parents and worse still to stop people searching for Madeleine. Whose going to burst their guts searching for a dead child?
And this came from the top cop on the case, so people were going to listen to it. All the already fragile Mccanns hopes smashed in one grubby money making book of lies.
Not only did it defame them but it also told lies seemingly designed both to demean The Mccanns (in a major way), to undermine the search, and stop people looking for Madeleine
Of course it damaged them immensely. Sorry Kizzy, but it is absurd to think anything else IMO from experience
What an evil thing to do. And one has to ask why? There has to be a reason
Sorry Kizzy, but it is absurd to think anything else IMO from experience
No problem Sadie no need to apologise- you have a right to your opinion same as us all
-
It certainly served to educate people that, despite the McCann's insistence that it was a fact, the abduction was just a theory and that others existed.
Oh right, so are you're saying that without the court case no one would have considered any other possibility than abduction?
-
It may well be that Amaral's book, DVD and interview made their suffering worse, but they failed to prove it. Where is the evidence of how things changed after the release of those items?
The judge dismissed their claim that Amaral's actions affected the search for their daughter, by the way. She ordered payment to the parents for the harm they suffered, nothing else.
If they failed to prove the harm why did the judge in the first instance recognise the harm the parents had suffered?
-
If they failed to prove the harm why did the judge in the first instance recognise the harm the parents had suffered?
These Judges of The First Instance are a waste of space, doncha know. I don't know why Portugal bothers with them at all, at all.
-
As most of you know, I lost my first born, my son aged 9, to brain cancer. I know what it means to lose a dearly loved part of yourself and your family, but I can't begin to imagine what it must be like to lose a child and not know what is/has happened to her/him. To desperately worry incessantly about what might be happening to her/him. They were beginning to climb out of their depression thanks to support from almost everyone + working hard at finding Madeleine (i.e. Hope at finding her)
As someone who has suffered one fairly major and one minor breakdowns, I can assure you that it is "the straw that breaks the camels back". One can be coping well with a multiple problems situation when something extra suddenly blows the lot and one drops into breakdown.
This "straw" from Amaral was a mighty one and had several aspects to it:
1) Insinuating that The Mccanns were bad parents
2) Insinuating that they killed Madeleine
3) Stating that Madeleine was dead
4) ETC.
It appeared that it was intended to break the amazingly strong parents and worse still to stop people searching for Madeleine. Whose going to burst their guts searching for a dead child?
And this came from the top cop on the case, so people were going to listen to it. All the already fragile Mccanns hopes smashed in one grubby money making book of lies.
Not only did it defame them but it also told lies seemingly designed both to demean The Mccanns (in a major way), to undermine the search, and stop people looking for Madeleine
Of course it damaged them immensely. Sorry Kizzy, but it is absurd to think anything else IMO from experience
What an evil thing to do. And one has to ask why? There has to be a reason
Hi Sadie. I was aware you lost your child to a brain tumour. How sad.. My brother went through the same. It's something you come to terms with but never get over. You don't seem to be getting much sympathy here.
-
If they failed to prove the harm why did the judge in the first instance recognise the harm the parents had suffered?
Not forgetting the harm Maddie suffered whatever happened because of the mccs actions.
IMO reputation has always come first with them ...seems ECHR might just recognise that IMO
-
Sorry Kizzy, but it is absurd to think anything else IMO from experience
No problem Sadie no need to apologise- you have a right to your opinion same as us all
Sadie opinion is based on personal experience... That should make it more valid
-
Not forgetting the harm Maddie suffered whatever happened because of the mccs actions.
IMO reputation has always come first with them ...seems ECHR might just recognise that IMO
That won't come into it at all... Are you speculating
-
Hi Sadie. I was aware you lost your child to a brain tumour. How sad.. My brother went through the same. It's something you come to terms with but never get over. You don't seem to be getting much sympathy here.
You don't seem to be getting much sympathy here.
How arrogant IMO.
I doubt very much Sadie was looking ,,,for sympathy.
-
That won't come into it at all... Are you speculating
No ...just keeping on topic with ECHR ...to keep you happy lol
-
You don't seem to be getting much sympathy here.
How arrogant IMO.
I doubt very much Sadie was looking ,,,for sympathy.
Just an observation
-
These Judges of The First Instance are a waste of space, doncha know. I don't know why Portugal bothers with them at all, at all.
Same reason that other countries have them, so as not to clog up the higher court with trivia.
-
Oh right, so are you're saying that without the court case no one would have considered any other possibility than abduction?
There was a huge effort by the McCanns, their friends and family to 'sell' the abduction as a fact. It didn't work on everyone and imo the court case highlighted it's lack of a factual basis to even more people.
-
There was a huge effort by the McCanns, their friends and family to 'sell' the abduction as a fact. It didn't work on everyone and imo the court case highlighted it's lack of a factual basis to even more people.
What about the lack of factual basis for amarals book
-
Same reason that other countries have them, so as not to clog up the higher court with trivia.
Eh? If this was so trivial why did it go to a higher court?
-
There was a huge effort by the McCanns, their friends and family to 'sell' the abduction as a fact. It didn't work on everyone and imo the court case highlighted it's lack of a factual basis to even more people.
I'd say you're talking absolute rubbish from start to finish.
-
What about the lack of factual basis for amarals book
Quite. There was a huge effort to sell parental involvement as fact by Amaral, no need for quote marks round the sell bit, he actually did sell it and got rich on it, despite the complete absence of hard evidence for his theory. Apparently that's allowed though, even positively encouraged. It's a crazy old world.
-
What about the lack of factual basis for amarals book
Well seems their efforts gave the book publicity that money couldn't buy.
IMO they seemed to focus more on the book than the search for Maddie.
When
80. The facts related to the criminal investigation of Madeleine McCann's disappearance that the defendant Gonçalo Amaral refers to in the book, in an interview with the newspaper CdM and in the documentary are mostly facts that occurred and are documented in this investigation. (n° 27 and 28)
-
If they failed to prove the harm why did the judge in the first instance recognise the harm the parents had suffered?
Beats me;
13. Because of the statements made by defendant Gonçalo Amaral in the book, in the documentary and in the interview to Correio
da Manhã, authors Kate McCann and Gerald McCann suffer permanent anguish, insomnia, lack of appetite, anxiety and irritability,
preoccupation and indefinable fear?
Proved.
The judge adds that this psychological state is predates the book launch, the documentary and the interview and was not caused by them.
Nonetheless, it is not unreasonable to believe that the book, the documentary and the interview had an effect on the
couple, i.e. It had an effect but that is to be expected.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=5931.msg213863#msg213863
-
What about the lack of factual basis for amarals book
His factual basis was the investigation up to 10th September 2007.
-
Well seems their efforts gave the book publicity that money couldn't buy.
IMO they seemed to focus more on the book than the search for Maddie.
When
80. The facts related to the criminal investigation of Madeleine McCann's disappearance that the defendant Gonçalo Amaral refers to in the book, in an interview with the newspaper CdM and in the documentary are mostly facts that occurred and are documented in this investigation. (n° 27 and 28)
Perhaps you still don't realise but the facts Amaral relied on have been discredited and it doesn't represent the facts of the investigation at the time the book was published
-
His factual basis was the investigation up to 10th September 2007.
So the claim Eddie discovered a dead body under a flagstone in Jersey is a fact and part of the investigation
-
Same reason that other countries have them, so as not to clog up the higher court with trivia.
This doesn't seem to be working. It's The Portuguese Judiciary that so often Appeal and get the decisions overturned, when in fact this should be the means to protect against a Miscarriage of Justice.
-
Perhaps you still don't realise but the facts Amaral relied on have been discredited and it doesn't represent the facts of the investigation at the time the book was published
Well seems the SC didn't agree with that
What you should realise. - is the book is still there to buy.
-
What about the lack of factual basis for amarals book
Nope. We don't want to talk about that.
-
Perhaps you still don't realise but the facts Amaral relied on have been discredited and it doesn't represent the facts of the investigation at the time the book was published
Amaral restricted himself to the facts of the investigation from 3rd May 2007 to 10th September 2007. Which facts were discredited between 10th September 2007 and 21st July 2008?
-
Beats me;
13. Because of the statements made by defendant Gonçalo Amaral in the book, in the documentary and in the interview to Correio
da Manhã, authors Kate McCann and Gerald McCann suffer permanent anguish, insomnia, lack of appetite, anxiety and irritability,
preoccupation and indefinable fear?
Proved.
The judge adds that this psychological state is predates the book launch, the documentary and the interview and was not caused by them.
Nonetheless, it is not unreasonable to believe that the book, the documentary and the interview had an effect on the
couple, i.e. It had an effect but that is to be expected.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=5931.msg213863#msg213863
Salient bit bolded above. Only a very UNreasonable person would come to the conclusion that the book, documentary etc did not have an effect on the couple, an effect that could only have been negative.
-
This book was written before Amaral Retired. He asked The PJ for permission to publish it and they refused.
Make what you can of that.
-
Amaral restricted himself to the facts of the investigation from 3rd May 2007 to 10th September 2007. Which facts were discredited between 10th September 2007 and 21st July 2008?
The validity of the dog alerts. Amaral failed to mention they had no evidential value even though the pj files confirmed btjis
-
Salient bit bolded above. Only a very UNreasonable person would come to the conclusion that the book, documentary etc did not have an effect on the couple, an effect that could only have been negative.
Amaral seemed to saying in his appeal his actions didn't cause the problems, so perhaps the important point was;
12. Because of the statements made by defendant Gonçalo Amaral in the book, in the documentary and in the interview to Correio
da Manhã, authors Kate McCann and Gerald McCann are completely destroyed, from a moral, social, ethical, sentimental, family
point of view, much beyond the pain that their daughter’s absence causes them?
Not proved.
-
Amaral seemed to saying in his appeal his actions didn't cause the problems, so perhaps the important point was;
12. Because of the statements made by defendant Gonçalo Amaral in the book, in the documentary and in the interview to Correio
da Manhã, authors Kate McCann and Gerald McCann are completely destroyed, from a moral, social, ethical, sentimental, family
point of view, much beyond the pain that their daughter’s absence causes them?
Not proved.
One would have to be thick not to realise that this is true.
-
Amaral seemed to saying in his appeal his actions didn't cause the problems, so perhaps the important point was;
12. Because of the statements made by defendant Gonçalo Amaral in the book, in the documentary and in the interview to Correio
da Manhã, authors Kate McCann and Gerald McCann are completely destroyed, from a moral, social, ethical, sentimental, family
point of view, much beyond the pain that their daughter’s absence causes them?
Not proved.
None of this relates to the ECHR case
-
Amaral seemed to saying in his appeal his actions didn't cause the problems, so perhaps the important point was;
12. Because of the statements made by defendant Gonçalo Amaral in the book, in the documentary and in the interview to Correio
da Manhã, authors Kate McCann and Gerald McCann are completely destroyed, from a moral, social, ethical, sentimental, family
point of view, much beyond the pain that their daughter’s absence causes them?
Not proved.
How would one go about proving that though, seriously? If it is accepted that libel can cause harm or increase suffering but only with proof then what are the standards of proof require by the court? How for example would the McCanns prove that the book specifically increased their suffering from a moral point of view? I guess they should have really laid it on thick, had nervous breakdowns in the court, put on a real show if suffering, maybe that would have done as "proof". But in reality, it's a no brainer. Of course a best selling book promoted by the media that describes you as body occulters of you own daughter's body is going to cause anyone to be upset, and cause harm to their family and social relationships. How could it not?
-
Amaral restricted himself to the facts of the investigation from 3rd May 2007 to 10th September 2007. Which facts were discredited between 10th September 2007 and 21st July 2008?
This is from the documentary..
dogs’ investigation continues. They inspect several vehicles, and they only alert to the car that was hired by the McCanns 23 days after Madeleine’s disappearance. Eddie alerts that the car key and the boot had been in contact with a dead body.
27.01 – Keela discovers organic traces for analysis in the boot.
27.23 – The dogs’ reaction is revealing. These dogs have never failed in over 200 cases. The dogs marked two spots in the house: The wardrobe in the parents’ bedroom, and behind the living room sofa.
Is that a fair description of the dogs and their findings. Then we have as I understand... The Portuguese courts would not allow the McCanns to question the value of the alerts
-
This is from the documentary..
dogs’ investigation continues. They inspect several vehicles, and they only alert to the car that was hired by the McCanns 23 days after Madeleine’s disappearance. Eddie alerts that the car key and the boot had been in contact with a dead body.
27.01 – Keela discovers organic traces for analysis in the boot.
27.23 – The dogs’ reaction is revealing. These dogs have never failed in over 200 cases. The dogs marked two spots in the house: The wardrobe in the parents’ bedroom, and behind the living room sofa.
Is that a fair description of the dogs and their findings. Then we have as I understand... The Portuguese courts would not allow the McCanns to question the value of the alerts
The alerts were deemed inconclusive ....that is not the same as deemed useless or no value.
Sometimes, the result might be “inconclusive.” That means the lab doesn't have a clear yes or no answer based on your sample
.
-
The alerts were deemed inconclusive ....that is not the same as deemed useless or no value.
Sometimes, the result might be “inconclusive.” That means the lab doesn't have a clear yes or no answer based on your sample
.
The alerts were not deemed inconclusive.. That was the dna
-
Amaral restricted himself to the facts of the investigation from 3rd May 2007 to 10th September 2007. Which facts were discredited between 10th September 2007 and 21st July 2008?
In fact with the reconstruction and further questioning requested by Rebelo I think it would be safe to assume that he was also steering the investigation in the same direction as Amaral.
-
Page 02 of the Supreme Court ruling.
The book is the expression of an opinion, including the account of the conclusions that the author draws from the means of obtaining evidence produced in the investigation in order to formulate a thesis, an hypothesis of ascertainment of the facts.
Based on a work in progress the book and documentary express an opinion which was superseded by further investigation therefore when Amaral published his book he was aware that there was no foundation to any of the reasons his investigation used to make the McCanns arguidos. Not one. Therefore his thesis was proved wrong.
-
Not really, its his opinion that he can prove it from his hypothesis of the evidence.
Why were his and subsequent investigations unable to prove his hypothesis?
-
Why were his and subsequent investigations unable to prove his hypothesis?
I guess they just didn’t have the genius of Amaral, that’s why.
-
Based on a work in progress the book and documentary express an opinion which was superseded by further investigation therefore when Amaral published his book he was aware that there was no foundation to any of the reasons his investigation used to make the McCanns arguidos. Not one. Therefore his thesis was proved wrong.
Until those ‘works in progress’ reach their conclusion...or not...nothing is certain.
-
Why were his and subsequent investigations unable to prove his hypothesis?
Because he was taken off the case.
-
How would one go about proving that though, seriously? If it is accepted that libel can cause harm or increase suffering but only with proof then what are the standards of proof require by the court? How for example would the McCanns prove that the book specifically increased their suffering from a moral point of view? I guess they should have really laid it on thick, had nervous breakdowns in the court, put on a real show if suffering, maybe that would have done as "proof". But in reality, it's a no brainer. Of course a best selling book promoted by the media that describes you as body occulters of you own daughter's body is going to cause anyone to be upset, and cause harm to their family and social relationships. How could it not?
How have the McCanns family &/or social relationships been affected by Amarals book?
Have they been shunned by family members?
Was Kate prevented from becoming ambassador for missing people on account of the damage the book has done?
-
How have the McCanns family &/or social relationships been affected by Amarals book?
Have they been shunned by family members?
Was Kate prevented from becoming ambassador for missing people on account of the damage the book has done?
We've never been told how they've suffered, only that they have.
The closing scene from the Body Snatchers comes to mind.
-
How have the McCanns family &/or social relationships been affected by Amarals book?
Have they been shunned by family members?
Was Kate prevented from becoming ambassador for missing people on account of the damage the book has done?
I don’t believe I claimed either of those things. I wouldn’t expect you to understand so I won’t even bother trying to explain , WUMs aren’t really interested in reasoned discussion.
-
We've never been told how they've suffered, only that they have.
The closing scene from the Body Snatchers comes to mind.
Of course they’ve not suffered. They’ve loved every minute of being publicly accused by a sweaty ex-cop of faking an abduction and hiding their daughter’s corpse and knowing that he’s made a career out of their daughter’s disappearance.
-
FGS it was a year after Maddie went missing so it seems you think they were getting over it.
Yet they are still not over the book after thirteen years .WOW
That must rank as surely one of the most insensitive posts I've read in a long time.
-
Please expect ALL Off Topic posts to be deleted from this point on.
-
The validity of the dog alerts. Amaral failed to mention they had no evidential value even though the pj files confirmed btjis
Gerry McCann tried to talk about dogs when he gave evidence. The judge wasn't interested;
GMC - I want to speak about the sniffer dogs. They never alerted to any blood in the car and they never alerted to cadaver odour...
Judge [interrupts] – We are not here to ascertain that, our perspective here in this court is to analyse your claim.
GMC – But the book mentions facts that aren't true.
Judge – To decide that there are already forensic experts. We are not here to prove if the contents of the book are truthful or not. Here we are only trying to establish if the freedom of expression of the defendants has affected the rights of the claimants. This court cannot be a substitute of the criminal investigation. [Turns to the interpreter] Tell the gentleman that he is excused.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=4746.0
-
Gerry McCann tried to talk about dogs when he gave evidence. The judge wasn't interested;
GMC - I want to speak about the sniffer dogs. They never alerted to any blood in the car and they never alerted to cadaver odour...
Judge [interrupts] – We are not here to ascertain that, our perspective here in this court is to analyse your claim.
GMC – But the book mentions facts that aren't true.
Judge – To decide that there are already forensic experts. We are not here to prove if the contents of the book are truthful or not. Here we are only trying to establish if the freedom of expression of the defendants has affected the rights of the claimants. This court cannot be a substitute of the criminal investigation. [Turns to the interpreter] Tell the gentleman that he is excused.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=4746.0
You’ve just managed to prove that Amaral was not found not guilty of libel, well done!
-
Gerry McCann tried to talk about dogs when he gave evidence. The judge wasn't interested;
GMC - I want to speak about the sniffer dogs. They never alerted to any blood in the car and they never alerted to cadaver odour...
Judge [interrupts] – We are not here to ascertain that, our perspective here in this court is to analyse your claim.
GMC – But the book mentions facts that aren't true.
Judge – To decide that there are already forensic experts. We are not here to prove if the contents of the book are truthful or not. Here we are only trying to establish if the freedom of expression of the defendants has affected the rights of the claimants. This court cannot be a substitute of the criminal investigation. [Turns to the interpreter] Tell the gentleman that he is excused.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=4746.0
That bit I do understand, the court was not there to examine facts, but just the rights of the ex-policeman telling all sorts of stories about the McCanns.
The balance of the two rights tips in the favour of the authorities I'd imagine. Had it been the McCanns writing about Amaral the outcome would have been different IMO.
-
Gerry McCann tried to talk about dogs when he gave evidence. The judge wasn't interested;
GMC - I want to speak about the sniffer dogs. They never alerted to any blood in the car and they never alerted to cadaver odour...
Judge [interrupts] – We are not here to ascertain that, our perspective here in this court is to analyse your claim.
GMC – But the book mentions facts that aren't true.
Judge – To decide that there are already forensic experts. We are not here to prove if the contents of the book are truthful or not. Here we are only trying to establish if the freedom of expression of the defendants has affected the rights of the claimants. This court cannot be a substitute of the criminal investigation. [Turns to the interpreter] Tell the gentleman that he is excused.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=4746.0
Is this ON TOPIC?
-
Is this ON TOPIC?
I think it is. It shows what the McCanns are up against.
-
You’ve just managed to prove that Amaral was not found not guilty of libel, well done!
Could you repeat that sentence without the double negative please?
-
Gerry McCann tried to talk about dogs when he gave evidence. The judge wasn't interested;
GMC - I want to speak about the sniffer dogs. They never alerted to any blood in the car and they never alerted to cadaver odour...
Judge [interrupts] – We are not here to ascertain that, our perspective here in this court is to analyse your claim.
GMC – But the book mentions facts that aren't true.
Judge – To decide that there are already forensic experts. We are not here to prove if the contents of the book are truthful or not. Here we are only trying to establish if the freedom of expression of the defendants has affected the rights of the claimants. This court cannot be a substitute of the criminal investigation. [Turns to the interpreter] Tell the gentleman that he is excused.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=4746.0
I'm obviously aware of this but what I read from the ECHR about the balance between articles 8 and 10 is that they consider the veracity of the evidence... Which makes sense.
Its like honest opinion. If the allegations being made are backed by strong evidence then free speech may have precedence.
In a Guardian article it was said that Almeida.. Who wrote the interim report... Said the main evidence against the McCanns was the dog alerts.... Which the Pj was told had no evidential value or reliability.
So in short Amarals opinions were not based on reliable evidence.... From what I have read that will go against Portugal at the ECHR
-
Could you repeat that sentence without the double negative please?
Its perfect as it is
-
I think it is. It shows what the McCanns are up against.
Thats the Portuguese not the ECHR
-
Could you repeat that sentence without the double negative please?
Would you please get off Davel's back. Thankyou
-
Could you repeat that sentence without the double negative please?
It's perfectly correct, Rob.
-
Would you please get off Davel's back. Thankyou
It was my back he was on.
-
It was my back he was on.
Either Or.
-
I'm obviously aware of this but what I read from the ECHR about the balance between articles 8 and 10 is that they consider the veracity of the evidence... Which makes sense.
Its like honest opinion. If the allegations being made are backed by strong evidence then free speech may have precedence.
In a Guardian article it was said that Almeida.. Who wrote the interim report... Said the main evidence against the McCanns was the dog alerts.... Which the Pj was told had no evidential value or reliability.
So in short Amarals opinions were not based on reliable evidence.... From what I have read that will go against Portugal at the ECHR
So you think the ECHR are going to have to examine the evidence?
-
Its perfect as it is
Is it really???
"You’ve just managed to prove that Amaral was not found not guilty of libel, well done!"
Can you "not found" something?
-
Thats the Portuguese not the ECHR
But how can the ECHR say the Portuguese system is wrong, what are they going to say? "They did NOT give sufficient weight to the right to a good reputation" But are they saying it would always tip the balance?
-
Would you please get off Davel's back. Thankyou
The sentence I question was one written by VS, not Davel. For some reason, Davel has stepped into the conversation.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=8465.msg639708#msg639708
-
But how can the ECHR say the Portuguese system is wrong, what are they going to say? "They did NOT give sufficient weight to the right to a good reputation" But are they saying it would always tip the balance?
There are criteria used to decide which way the balance goes. One of these is the veracity of the evidence.
I've explained just now that amarals evidence is in some instances completely made up. That will go against Portugal
-
There are criteria used to decide which way the balance goes. One of these is the veracity of the evidence.
I've explained just now that amarals evidence is in some instances completely made up. That will go against Portugal
That is why I asked "is the ECHR going to have to examine the evidence then"? If the SC wasn't interested in the facts of the case what chance does the ECHR have?
-
That is why I asked "is the ECHR going to have to examine the evidence then"? If the SC wasn't interested in the facts of the case what chance does the ECHR have?
The ECHR take into account the veracity of the evidence that supports the defamation.. So it follows they will look at the evidence
-
Free speech is important. Amaral said the dogs alerted that the ccar key and the boot had been in contact with a dead body. He said the dogs had never failed in over 2oo cases.
If that was true its important that its highlighted and I would support him and not the McCanns... But it isn't true and therefore he has no right to say it
-
Free speech is important. Amaral said the dogs alerted that the ccar key and the boot had been in contact with a dead body. He said the dogs had never failed in over 2oo cases.
If that was true its important that its highlighted and I would support him and not the McCanns... But it isn't true and therefore he has no right to say it
It would only have to be his honest opinion at the time, wouldn't it? I can't see then bringing Amaral in to have his opinions to be cross-examined.
-
It would only have to be his honest opinion at the time, wouldn't it? I can't see then bringing Amaral in to have his opinions to be cross-examined.
It isn't simply being his honest opinion... It has to be backed by evidence. They don't need to bring him in.. His evidence is obviously fantasy
-
It isn't simply being his honest opinion... It has to be backed by evidence. They don't need to bring him in.. His evidence is obviously fantasy
Do you think they will make decisions like that? Do you think it will like this: "Oh it is obvious Amaral was wrong , so we find in favour of the McCanns." If they do, well, what a shambles.
Surely they will have to look at how things are quantified before they are balanced. How do you put a number (a weight) on the various rights?
-
Do you think they will make decisions like that? Do you think it will like this: "Oh it is obvious Amaral was wrong , so we find in favour of the McCanns." If they do, well, what a shambles.
Surely they will have to look at how things are quantified before they are balanced. How do you put a number (a weight) on the various rights?
Look at page 40 on the cite I gave
-
This may help explain further the role of the ECHR.
https://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/50Questions_ENG.pdf
-
This may help explain further the role of the ECHR.
https://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/50Questions_ENG.pdf
It says in there that;
The applicant must be, personally and directly, a victim of a violation of the Convention, and must have suffered a significant disadvantage.
I struggle to identify any 'significant disadvantage' suffered by the McCanns because of the actions of the Portuguese state.
-
It says in there that;
The applicant must be, personally and directly, a victim of a violation of the Convention, and must have suffered a significant disadvantage.
I struggle to identify any 'significant disadvantage' suffered by the McCanns because of the actions of the Portuguese state.
Well you wouldn’t would you? You don’t believe they’re innocent of the crimes Amaral accused them of in his book, therefore you can’t understand the suffering his book caused them, nor the additional distress that overturning his original guilty verdict would have caused. When you have been denied justice then that can be considered a “significant disadvantage “.
-
Well you wouldn’t would you? You don’t believe they’re innocent of the crimes Amaral accused them of in his book, therefore you can’t understand the suffering his book caused them, nor the additional distress that overturning his original guilty verdict would have caused. When you have been denied justice then that can be considered a “significant disadvantage “.
Given that they were made arguidos in September 2007, why were they upset in 2008 when Amaral published the details in his book? Was it because they thought they'd been cleared by the archiving dispatch, perhaps?
-
Laudable really how a news article with out any real or verifiable veracity can bring out such sentences as the ECHR will do this and that when the case being talked about is still at a stage of not even being decided it it's admissible yet.
-
Given that they were made arguidos in September 2007, why were they upset in 2008 when Amaral published the details in his book? Was it because they thought they'd been cleared by the archiving dispatch, perhaps?
If you can’t understand why they were upset by the book then there really is no hope of you understanding why anyone has any emotional reaction to anything imo. This is where a lack of empathy gets you.
-
It says in there that;
The applicant must be, personally and directly, a victim of a violation of the Convention, and must have suffered a significant disadvantage.
I struggle to identify any 'significant disadvantage' suffered by the McCanns because of the actions of the Portuguese state.
So you don't understand that being accused of being guilty of several criminal acts would cause any significant harm. I find that very odd
-
So you don't understand that being accused of being guilty of several criminal acts would cause any significant harm. I find that very odd
As do I but it does explain something about the sceptic mindset IMO. Many (most?) sceptics simply cannot or will not see things from the point of view of people for whom they have a visceral dislike.
-
Laudable really how a news article with out any real or verifiable veracity can bring out such sentences as the ECHR will do this and that when the case being talked about is still at a stage of not even being decided it it's admissible yet.
A little like Amaral and others finding the McCanns guilty when they've never even been arrested
-
Laudable really how a news article with out any real or verifiable veracity can bring out such sentences as the ECHR will do this and that when the case being talked about is still at a stage of not even being decided it it's admissible yet.
Perhaps you or any other sceptic could tell us on what grounds you think the action will be inadmissible
-
If you can’t understand why they were upset by the book then there really is no hope of you understanding why anyone has any emotional reaction to anything imo. This is where a lack of empathy gets you.
What Amaral wrote about wasn't new to them; they lived through it in September 2007. They knew what the PJ thought and why. What I don't understand is why it seemed to upset them more to read about it than it did to live through it.
When asked about being made arguida Kate doesn't answer;
The judge rephrases – What disturbed you more: the disappearance of your daughter, the fact you were made arguido or the reason for this trial, i.e the book and the documentary?
Kate Healy (McCann) There is nothing worse than loosing a child, and that pain was amplified by both the book and the documentary.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=4745.msg172158#msg172158
When asked the same question, Gerry doesn't answer either;
The judge rephrases – What disturbed you more: the disappearance of your daughter, the fact you were made arguido or the reason for this trial, i.e the book and the documentary?
GMC They all happened at different times, the abduction of a child is devastating but the book intensified that feeling.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=4746.msg172168#msg172168
Alan Pike's evidence was interesting;
GP – Do you know if the fact of being made an arguido was related to the suspicion of some crime?
AP says he knows some facts, they weren't surprised.
GP – What is the difference with the book?
AP doesn't understand.
GP repeats her question.
AP – They were surprised with the book because the final Report said they were innocent.
GP – Have you read the final report?
AP says "no".
GP – How do you know then what its conclusions are?
AP says the McCanns told him.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=2304.msg75521#msg75521
Perhaps they'd forgotten how traumatic it was when they were informed they were going to be made arguidos;
Gerry was distraught now. He was on his knees, sobbing, his head hung low. ‘We’re finished. Our life is over,’ he kept saying over and over again...
Gerry and I made it very clear to Trisha and Eileen that if we didn’t return from the police station the next day, they should take the children out of the country as soon as possible...
Gerry and I just looked at each other, not knowing quite what to do or what was to become of us. We’d experienced many periods of despair since our beloved daughter had been taken away, but this one would take some beating. Our lives, our family, our whole future hung in the balance.
[madeleine]
Were Amaral's book, DVD and interview really more upsetting and traumatic than that? &%%6
-
What Amaral wrote about wasn't new to them; they lived through it in September 2007. They knew what the PJ thought and why. What I don't understand is why it seemed to upset them more to read about it than it did to live through it.
When asked about being made arguida Kate doesn't answer;
The judge rephrases – What disturbed you more: the disappearance of your daughter, the fact you were made arguido or the reason for this trial, i.e the book and the documentary?
Kate Healy (McCann) There is nothing worse than loosing a child, and that pain was amplified by both the book and the documentary.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=4745.msg172158#msg172158
When asked the same question, Gerry doesn't answer either;
The judge rephrases – What disturbed you more: the disappearance of your daughter, the fact you were made arguido or the reason for this trial, i.e the book and the documentary?
GMC They all happened at different times, the abduction of a child is devastating but the book intensified that feeling.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=4746.msg172168#msg172168
Alan Pike's evidence was interesting;
GP – Do you know if the fact of being made an arguido was related to the suspicion of some crime?
AP says he knows some facts, they weren't surprised.
GP – What is the difference with the book?
AP doesn't understand.
GP repeats her question.
AP – They were surprised with the book because the final Report said they were innocent.
GP – Have you read the final report?
AP says "no".
GP – How do you know then what its conclusions are?
AP says the McCanns told him.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=2304.msg75521#msg75521
Perhaps they'd forgotten how traumatic it was when they were informed they were going to be made arguidos;
Gerry was distraught now. He was on his knees, sobbing, his head hung low. ‘We’re finished. Our life is over,’ he kept saying over and over again...
Gerry and I made it very clear to Trisha and Eileen that if we didn’t return from the police station the next day, they should take the children out of the country as soon as possible...
Gerry and I just looked at each other, not knowing quite what to do or what was to become of us. We’d experienced many periods of despair since our beloved daughter had been taken away, but this one would take some beating. Our lives, our family, our whole future hung in the balance.
[madeleine]
Were Amaral's book, DVD and interview really more upsetting and traumatic than that? &%%6
You can't deem to understand that Amaral added to their problems and they have every right and reason to sue him for defamation. As the Portuguese judicial system hasn't found in their favour they have every right and reason to take their case to the ECHR.
-
What Amaral wrote about wasn't new to them; they lived through it in September 2007. They knew what the PJ thought and why. What I don't understand is why it seemed to upset them more to read about it than it did to live through it.
When asked about being made arguida Kate doesn't answer;
The judge rephrases – What disturbed you more: the disappearance of your daughter, the fact you were made arguido or the reason for this trial, i.e the book and the documentary?
Kate Healy (McCann) There is nothing worse than loosing a child, and that pain was amplified by both the book and the documentary.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=4745.msg172158#msg172158
When asked the same question, Gerry doesn't answer either;
The judge rephrases – What disturbed you more: the disappearance of your daughter, the fact you were made arguido or the reason for this trial, i.e the book and the documentary?
GMC They all happened at different times, the abduction of a child is devastating but the book intensified that feeling.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=4746.msg172168#msg172168
Alan Pike's evidence was interesting;
GP – Do you know if the fact of being made an arguido was related to the suspicion of some crime?
AP says he knows some facts, they weren't surprised.
GP – What is the difference with the book?
AP doesn't understand.
GP repeats her question.
AP – They were surprised with the book because the final Report said they were innocent.
GP – Have you read the final report?
AP says "no".
GP – How do you know then what its conclusions are?
AP says the McCanns told him.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=2304.msg75521#msg75521
Perhaps they'd forgotten how traumatic it was when they were informed they were going to be made arguidos;
Gerry was distraught now. He was on his knees, sobbing, his head hung low. ‘We’re finished. Our life is over,’ he kept saying over and over again...
Gerry and I made it very clear to Trisha and Eileen that if we didn’t return from the police station the next day, they should take the children out of the country as soon as possible...
Gerry and I just looked at each other, not knowing quite what to do or what was to become of us. We’d experienced many periods of despair since our beloved daughter had been taken away, but this one would take some beating. Our lives, our family, our whole future hung in the balance.
[madeleine]
Were Amaral's book, DVD and interview really more upsetting and traumatic than that? &%%6
Who said "more upsetting"? Didn't Amaral's book get released the day after the case was archived, and in which the final report ~(written after months and months of investigative work) stated that there was a lack of evidence of the arguidos having committed any crime? Can you not see how this would be perceived by the targets of the book, and how upsetting this would be? No, of course you can't. and as a mod I really think you should leave off the goading emoticons, anyone would think you were Angelo.
-
I reckon there would be more empathy for Christian Bruckner if, after HCW were sacked from the investigation the ex-prosecutor then wrote a best selling book outlining his theory of Bruckner's involvement which was then published after the case was closed and no charges brought against the suspect. I expect his apologists here would have no trouble at all empathising with the upset and distress such a book might cause him and fully support any legal action he might bring against HCW.
-
Who said "more upsetting"? Didn't Amaral's book get released the day after the case was archived, and in which the final report ~(written after months and months of investigative work) stated that there was a lack of evidence of the arguidos having committed any crime? Can you not see how this would be perceived by the targets of the book, and how upsetting this would be? No, of course you can't. and as a mod I really think you should leave off the goading emoticons, anyone would think you were Angelo.
I think gunit is actually a bit worried that the McCanns might actually win this case in Europe and the disgraceful behaviour of the Portuguese police and judiciary will be exposed
-
I reckon there would be more empathy for Christian Bruckner if, after HCW were sacked from the investigation the ex-prosecutor then wrote a best selling book outlining his theory of Bruckner's involvement which was then published after the case was closed and no charges brought against the suspect. I expect his apologists here would have no trouble at all empathising with the upset and distress such a book might cause him and fully support any legal action he might bring against HCW.
You'd better believe it.
-
I reckon there would be more empathy for Christian Bruckner if, after HCW were sacked from the investigation the ex-prosecutor then wrote a best selling book outlining his theory of Bruckner's involvement which was then published after the case was closed and no charges brought against the suspect. I expect his apologists here would have no trouble at all empathising with the upset and distress such a book might cause him and fully support any legal action he might bring against HCW.
Sceptics have already shown they would support any legal action by CB for defamation. I would support his rights..
-
What Amaral wrote about wasn't new to them; they lived through it in September 2007. They knew what the PJ thought and why. What I don't understand is why it seemed to upset them more to read about it than it did to live through it.
When asked about being made arguida Kate doesn't answer;
The judge rephrases – What disturbed you more: the disappearance of your daughter, the fact you were made arguido or the reason for this trial, i.e the book and the documentary?
Kate Healy (McCann) There is nothing worse than loosing a child, and that pain was amplified by both the book and the documentary.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=4745.msg172158#msg172158
When asked the same question, Gerry doesn't answer either;
The judge rephrases – What disturbed you more: the disappearance of your daughter, the fact you were made arguido or the reason for this trial, i.e the book and the documentary?
GMC They all happened at different times, the abduction of a child is devastating but the book intensified that feeling.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=4746.msg172168#msg172168
Alan Pike's evidence was interesting;
GP – Do you know if the fact of being made an arguido was related to the suspicion of some crime?
AP says he knows some facts, they weren't surprised.
GP – What is the difference with the book?
AP doesn't understand.
GP repeats her question.
AP – They were surprised with the book because the final Report said they were innocent.
GP – Have you read the final report?
AP says "no".
GP – How do you know then what its conclusions are?
AP says the McCanns told him.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=2304.msg75521#msg75521
Perhaps they'd forgotten how traumatic it was when they were informed they were going to be made arguidos;
Gerry was distraught now. He was on his knees, sobbing, his head hung low. ‘We’re finished. Our life is over,’ he kept saying over and over again...
Gerry and I made it very clear to Trisha and Eileen that if we didn’t return from the police station the next day, they should take the children out of the country as soon as possible...
Gerry and I just looked at each other, not knowing quite what to do or what was to become of us. We’d experienced many periods of despair since our beloved daughter had been taken away, but this one would take some beating. Our lives, our family, our whole future hung in the balance.
[madeleine]
Were Amaral's book, DVD and interview really more upsetting and traumatic than that? &%%6
Just to be absolutely clear - are you saying you cannot understand why the McCanns would find Amaral's book in any way distressing, hurtful or upsetting? That, in a similar circumstance you would be totally indifferent to a best selling book written about you that accused you of a serious crime that you hadn't committed, and which the police investigating the crime had concluded there was no evidence against you?
-
I think gunit is actually a bit worried that the McCanns might actually win this case in Europe and the disgraceful behaviour of the Portuguese police and judiciary will be exposed
I think it has already been exposed, so someone is fighting a losing battle.
-
Sceptics have already shown they would support any legal action by CB for defamation. I would support his rights..
Weird how they would support a convicted rapist and paedophile but not the parents of a missing child. Personally I could completely understand CB's grievance if he genuinely had nothing to do with Madeleine's disappearance but even then I wouldn't lend him my support. I don't understand why sceptics whilst not wishing to lend the McCanns any support also are completely unable to see things from their point of view. I find it very odd.
-
Weird how they would support a convicted rapist and paedophile but not the parents of a missing child. Personally I could completely understand CB's grievance if he genuinely had nothing to do with Madeleine's disappearance but even then I wouldn't lend him my support. I don't understand why sceptics whilst not wishing to lend the McCanns any support also are completely unable to see things from their point of view. I find it very odd.
I'm quite sure the McCanns were upset by the book. They thought the final report said they were innocent, then a book which suggests they weren't becomes a best seller in Portugal and sells well in other countries too. The nightmare wasn't over, it was continuing.
I wonder how upsetting it was when the Supreme Court judges disclosed that the final report didn't say they were innocent.
-
I'm quite sure the McCanns were upset by the book. They thought the final report said they were innocent, then a book which suggests they weren't becomes a best seller in Portugal and sells well in other countries too. The nightmare wasn't over, it was continuing.
I wonder how upsetting it was when the Supreme Court judges disclosed that the final report didn't say they were innocent.
The final report said there was no evidence against them so it must have come as a shock that a book was written by an ex policeman accusing them of guilt.... When they had the right to be considered innocent. So in effect... The SC which had the duty to consider them innocent supported a book which considered them guilty
-
I'm quite sure the McCanns were upset by the book. They thought the final report said they were innocent, then a book which suggests they weren't becomes a best seller in Portugal and sells well in other countries too. The nightmare wasn't over, it was continuing.
I wonder how upsetting it was when the Supreme Court judges disclosed that the final report didn't say they were innocent.
We are still back to the same old same old. The McCanns do not have to prove their Innocence and in fact have never even been arrested.
I am reluctant to comment on The ECHR, but it is looking good for The McCanns.
-
You'd better believe it.
In my opinion we have already seen this in action.
I think ~ at this moment in time ~ the non-story that the McCanns are edging nearer to the head of the queue of their case being considered in Europe is performing as a trigger to plumb the prejudicial depths yet again.
It is not an edifying sight.
-
I'm quite sure the McCanns were upset by the book. They thought the final report said they were innocent, then a book which suggests they weren't becomes a best seller in Portugal and sells well in other countries too. The nightmare wasn't over, it was continuing.
I wonder how upsetting it was when the Supreme Court judges disclosed that the final report didn't say they were innocent.
I would say that it would be upsetting to know that a report which states clearly that there is a lack of evidence against them would be used as justification for the publication of a book which claimed that based on the evidence they were guilty.
-
this is from an ECHR guide to article 8..pg 40 explaining the position on defamation
0). In cases that concerned allegations of criminal conduct, the Court also took into account the fact that under Article 6 § 2 of the Convention, individuals have a right to be presumed
innocent of any criminal offence until proven guilty
https://www.echr.coe.int/documents/guide_art_8_eng.pdf
-
In this country you are innocent until proven guilty. Why would the McCann's have to prove innocence? They were not arrested, if they had read Amaral's book they would see that he had no evidence the McCann's were guilty.
-
The final report said there was no evidence against them so it must have come as a shock that a book was written by an ex policeman accusing them of guilt.... When they had the right to be considered innocent. So in effect... The SC which had the duty to consider them innocent supported a book which considered them guilty
Quite simply Gunit's post has summed up her total lack of understanding of why the utterances of the Supreme Court judges left the McCanns no alternative but to appeal to the European Court.
-
this is from an ECHR guide to article 8..pg 40 explaining the position on defamation
0). In cases that concerned allegations of criminal conduct, the Court also took into account the fact that under Article 6 § 2 of the Convention, individuals have a right to be presumed
innocent of any criminal offence until proven guilty
https://www.echr.coe.int/documents/guide_art_8_eng.pdf
Therefore the Supreme Court judges prejudicial summing up of a case which found in Amaral's favour stepped over a line as far as the European Convention to which Portugal is a signatory is concerned.
On that basis I think sceptic disgraceful hopes that the McCann/Healey appeal won't progress to be heard at the ECHR will be dashed. I don't think there will be any option, as the damning evidence is on display for all to see.
-
Quite simply Gunit's post has summed up her total lack of understanding of why the utterances of the Supreme Court judges left the McCanns no alternative but to appeal to the European Court.
G-Unit seems to think that being upset that the Supreme Court felt it necessary to point out that the Final Report did not explicitly state their innocence is somehow a failing on the McCanns part. Why wouldn't they be upset by the fact that the highest court in the land seemed to be casting doubt over their status and their right to the presumption of innocence?
-
What evidence is there that Amaral had read the final report?
-
What evidence is there that Amaral had read the final report?
He wrote his book before it had been published.
-
G-Unit seems to think that being upset that the Supreme Court felt it necessary to point out that the Final Report did not explicitly state their innocence is somehow a failing on the McCanns part. Why wouldn't they be upset by the fact that the highest court in the land seemed to be casting doubt over their status and their right to the presumption of innocence?
I fail to see why sceptics think the prejudicial summation of the Supreme Court judges would sit well with judges in the ECHR or why the McCanns are not entitled to the same human rights as everyone else who comes under the European umbrella.
They are quick enough to jump to the protection of proven rapists and child molesters.
-
this is from an ECHR guide to article 8..pg 40 explaining the position on defamation
0). In cases that concerned allegations of criminal conduct, the Court also took into account the fact that under Article 6 § 2 of the Convention, individuals have a right to be presumed
innocent of any criminal offence until proven guilty
https://www.echr.coe.int/documents/guide_art_8_eng.pdf
When the police are investigating a case there is a point where they come to a conclusion that the suspect is guilty even before the suspect has been proven guilty.
Maybe no matter how convinced the police are they must never publically go against "Article 6 § 2 of the Convention". IMO Article 6 § 2 of the Convention is a paramount right over the right to free speech of the investigating officer.
-
I would say that it would be upsetting to know that a report which states clearly that there is a lack of evidence against them would be used as justification for the publication of a book which claimed that based on the evidence they were guilty.
Amaral gave his opinion on events up to September 2007. The McCanns thought that they were declared innocent in the final report, but you seem reluctant to confirm their belief. Did you, like them, believe that the report said they were innocent?
AP – They were surprised with the book because the final Report said they were innocent.
GP – Have you read the final report?
AP says "no".
GP – How do you know then what its conclusions are?
AP says the McCanns told him.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=2304.msg75521#msg75521
-
Amaral gave his opinion on events up to September 2007. The McCanns thought that they were declared innocent in the final report, but you seem reluctant to confirm their belief. Did you, like them, believe that the report said they were innocent?
AP – They were surprised with the book because the final Report said they were innocent.
GP – Have you read the final report?
AP says "no".
GP – How do you know then what its conclusions are?
AP says the McCanns told him.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=2304.msg75521#msg75521
Could you provide a cite taht the McCanns thought that the final report was a declaration of innocence. Youve repeated it several times so acite is in order.
-
When the police are investigating a case there is a point where they come to a conclusion that the suspect is guilty even before the suspect has been proven guilty.
Maybe no matter how convinced the police are they must never publically go against "Article 6 § 2 of the Convention". IMO Article 6 § 2 of the Convention is a paramount right over the right to free speech of the investigating officer.
Which is exactly why Amaral resigned his position. He was no longer an officer of the PJ when he published his book;
"I requested early retirement in order to be able to express myself freely" Page 3, The Truth of the Lie.
-
Which is exactly why Amaral resigned his position. He was no longer an officer of the PJ when he published his book;
"I requested early retirement in order to be able to express myself freely" Page 3, The Truth of the Lie.
The PJ refused Amaral's request to Publish while he was working for them. So not quite the same thing.
-
Amaral gave his opinion on events up to September 2007. The McCanns thought that they were declared innocent in the final report, but you seem reluctant to confirm their belief. Did you, like them, believe that the report said they were innocent?
AP – They were surprised with the book because the final Report said they were innocent.
GP – Have you read the final report?
AP says "no".
GP – How do you know then what its conclusions are?
AP says the McCanns told him.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=2304.msg75521#msg75521
I don't know what they believed so why should I be in a position to confirm or deny it? But - so what if they did? Does that make them worthy of contempt in your view? And why does it make their submission to the ECHR any less valid?
-
Which is exactly why Amaral resigned his position. He was no longer an officer of the PJ when he published his book;
"I requested early retirement in order to be able to express myself freely" Page 3, The Truth of the Lie.
Should he have been revealing what was in Police documents?
-
Amaral gave his opinion on events up to September 2007. The McCanns thought that they were declared innocent in the final report, but you seem reluctant to confirm their belief. Did you, like them, believe that the report said they were innocent?
AP – They were surprised with the book because the final Report said they were innocent.
GP – Have you read the final report?
AP says "no".
GP – How do you know then what its conclusions are?
AP says the McCanns told him.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=2304.msg75521#msg75521
cite required
-
There are criteria used to decide which way the balance goes. One of these is the veracity of the evidence.
I've explained just now that amarals evidence is in some instances completely made up. That will go against Portugal
Well, there is no evidence of value to say Maddie was in fact abducted ...so IMO that could also have been made up.
-
If you can’t understand why they were upset by the book then there really is no hope of you understanding why anyone has any emotional reaction to anything imo. This is where a lack of empathy gets you.
IMO may be having too much empathy... is where that has got you,
-
IMO may be having too much empathy... is where that has got you,
Oh? Where exactly do you think too much empathy has got me?
-
You can't deem to understand that Amaral added to their problems and they have every right and reason to sue him for defamation. As the Portuguese judicial system hasn't found in their favour they have every right and reason to take their case to the ECHR.
‘We’re finished. Our life is over,’ he kept saying over and over again...
Is this what could have happened when like GA thinks Maddie died in a terrible accident. IMO.
That their life would be over
-
In this country you are innocent until proven guilty. Why would the McCann's have to prove innocence? They were not arrested, if they had read Amaral's book they would see that he had no evidence the McCann's were guilty.
Is it ok then to assume that CB is guilty when he hasn't been arrested or any confirmed evidence?
Double standards IMO
-
Could you provide a cite taht the McCanns thought that the final report was a declaration of innocence. Youve repeated it several times so acite is in order.
I have cited what a witness told the court. It was hearsay evidence, but I have no reason to believe he was lying.
-
Is it ok then to assume that CB is guilty when he hasn't been arrested or any confirmed evidence?
Double standards IMO
Depends what the evidence is. Ive never said CB is guilty. Ive already said amaral can say what he likes as long as he has the evidence to support it...no double standards. Wolters has said he ha sthe evidence....CB should sue if he feels hes being badly treated.
-
I have cited what a witness told the court. It was hearsay evidence, but I have no reason to believe he was lying.
Who told the court...what exactly did he say? You still havent provided anything that can be checked...so...cite please or caveat with ...iyo
-
Amaral gave his opinion on events up to September 2007. The McCanns thought that they were declared innocent in the final report, but you seem reluctant to confirm their belief. Did you, like them, believe that the report said they were innocent?
AP – They were surprised with the book because the final Report said they were innocent.
GP – Have you read the final report?
AP says "no".
GP – How do you know then what its conclusions are?
AP says the McCanns told him.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=2304.msg75521#msg75521
A claim such as this really does require a cite. Im fairly sure you are wrong and are promoting misinformation..
cite required
-
I have received a warning for libel - could a mod kindly tell me who I have libelled please? If I don't know who or how I have libelled I am liable to libel again. Many thanks for your co-operation.
-
Therefore the Supreme Court judges prejudicial summing up of a case which found in Amaral's favour stepped over a line as far as the European Convention to which Portugal is a signatory is concerned.
On that basis I think sceptic disgraceful hopes that the McCann/Healey appeal won't progress to be heard at the ECHR will be dashed. I don't think there will be any option, as the damning evidence is on display for all to see.
Dear me, sounds as if you'll be sick as a parrot if things don't go according to your expectations.
For myself, I shall be content with the outcome, whatever, as it will have no affect on my life.
-
Is it ok then to assume that CB is guilty when he hasn't been arrested or any confirmed evidence?
Double standards IMO
He is a suspect.
-
Dear me, sounds as if you'll be sick as a parrot if things don't go according to your expectations.
For myself, I shall be content with the outcome, whatever, as it will have no affect on my life.
Do you not realise tahts just about how everyone feels......I would just like to find out what happened to Maddie.
If the McCanns were arreseted tomorrow with evidence to show their involvement I certainly wouldnt be unhappy...surprised yes...
-
Should he have been revealing what was in Police documents?
The files had already been made public.
-
Is it ok then to assume that CB is guilty when he hasn't been arrested or any confirmed evidence?
Double standards IMO
So what if CB is not arrested and not taken to court for the abduction of Madeleine but Wolters goes off and writes a book saying he is guilty. Would you be first in line to say sue ?
-
So what if CB is not arrested and not taken to court for the abduction of Madeleine but Wolters goes off and writes a book saying he is guilty. Would you be first in line to say sue ?
But the parents were arrested and questioned. They weren’t charged.
-
Dear me, sounds as if you'll be sick as a parrot if things don't go according to your expectations.
For myself, I shall be content with the outcome, whatever, as it will have no affect on my life.
Strange, only the other day you were saying how delighted you'd be if they failed which sounds to me like you are just a teensy bit emotionally invested despite your protestations to the contrary....
-
The files had already been made public.
What date were the files made public and what date was Amaral's book published?
-
But the parents were arrested and questioned. They weren’t charged.
The parents were not arrested, unless you have a cite you can provide?
-
I have cited what a witness told the court. It was hearsay evidence, but I have no reason to believe he was lying.
What witness.. What words.. How reliable is the witness... How reliable are you
Cite
-
I have cited what a witness told the court. It was hearsay evidence, but I have no reason to believe he was lying.
I think you a grossly misrepresenting the truth and that's why you can't provide a cite. Happy to apologise if I'm wrong but I'm not
-
Oh? Where exactly do you think too much empathy has got me?
Where you are now lol
-
Do you not realise tahts just about how everyone feels......I would just like to find out what happened to Maddie.
If the McCanns were arreseted tomorrow with evidence to show their involvement I certainly wouldnt be unhappy...surprised yes...
So does that mean you won't utter one word of complaint if McCanns lose at ECHR ?
-
Depends what the evidence is. Ive never said CB is guilty. Ive already said amaral can say what he likes as long as he has the evidence to support it...no double standards. Wolters has said he ha sthe evidence....CB should sue if he feels hes being badly treated.
Well seems it could be what GA has - Wolt could think he knows what happened but can't prove it IMO
-
So does that mean you won't utter one word of complaint if McCanns lose at ECHR ?
It won't affect me so I'm not bothered how it goes... But I think based on all the evidence the McCanns will win
-
Well seems it could be what GA has - Wolt could think he knows what happened but can't prove it IMO
Amaral doesn't have anymore evidence and doesn't claim.. The evidence he has used so far is total BS as I've already shown
-
I have received a warning for libel - could a mod kindly tell me who I have libelled please? If I don't know who or how I have libelled I am liable to libel again. Many thanks for your co-operation.
@)(++(*
-
He is a suspect.
Ye another one - how many is that now and seems Ney has been thrown back in the mix of suspects. -
-
So what if CB is not arrested and not taken to court for the abduction of Madeleine but Wolters goes off and writes a book saying he is guilty. Would you be first in line to say sue ?
No not at all - silly post really imo
-
Amaral doesn't have anymore evidence and doesn't claim.. The evidence he has used so far is total BS as I've already shown
You don't know though - wolts evidence could be BS also ...just because you don't think it is doesn't mean to say it isn't.
Y ou are as clueless as everyone else D
-
Where you are now lol
lol yeh lol
-
You don't know though - wolts evidence could be BS also ...just because you don't think it is doesn't mean to say it isn't.
Y ou are as clueless as everyone else D
The Portuguese police certainly seem to think so.
-
You don't know though - wolts evidence could be BS also ...just because you don't think it is doesn't mean to say it isn't.
Y ou are as clueless as everyone else D
I'm glad you accept amarals evidence is BS... But he does have a record of perjury..
We need to wait and see with Wolters... Based on everything I would say he does have the evidence.. We will see
-
The Portuguese police certainly seem to think so.
They are about as clueless as others who don't understand the evidence. It seems the Germans and SY agree with me
-
Ye another one - how many is that now and seems Ney has been thrown back in the mix of suspects. -
Who knows about Ney ?
Mentioned once in media and then gone all quite again as regards Madeleine.
Perhaps the French want him for their selves
-
They are about as clueless as others who don't understand the evidence. It seems the Germans and SY agree with me
SY have not commented.
-
SY have not commented.
Redwood... Stranger abduction
Then.. However Maddie left the apartment she was abducted.
Now...we are working closely with the Germans
Have you missed all this
-
I have cited what a witness told the court. It was hearsay evidence, but I have no reason to believe he was lying.
You have cited what you claim a witness told the court. Please provide a cite or remove your false claim
-
Redwood... Stranger abduction
Then.. However Maddie left the apartment she was abducted.
Now...we are working closely with the Germans
Have you missed all this
This is what Dick has said
Madeleine McCann still a missing person case - Dame Cressida Dick https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-55181357
Still a missing person enquiry.
-
They are about as clueless as others who don't understand the evidence. It seems the Germans and SY agree with me
Oh wow lol you really do have too much self-esteem in your post. IM0
Don't you mean you agree with them ...or anyone - as long as it doesn't involve the mccs.
-
This is what Dick has said
Madeleine McCann still a missing person case - Dame Cressida Dick https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-55181357
Still a missing person enquiry.
But the dogs!!!! 8)><(
-
I'm glad you accept amarals evidence is BS... But he does have a record of perjury..
We need to wait and see with Wolters... Based on everything I would say he does have the evidence.. We will see
SC didn't think it was BS probably ECHR will think the same.
-
SC didn't think it was BS probably ECHR will think the same.
his evidence is BS...as I have shown. That cannot be disputed. You hang on to a beleif that there is evidence of the MCans guilt when there is absolutely nothing to suggest there is and everything to suggest there isnt.
Amaral can beleive what he likes...but if hes going to make calims he must have evidence to support them. same goes for Wolters.
It looks like no one supports amarals theories..if they do why are the PJ not investigating them....
Thats a reason I look forward to the ECHR because I think it will show what a complete pile of tripe amarals book is...lets see
-
Dear me, sounds as if you'll be sick as a parrot if things don't go according to your expectations.
For myself, I shall be content with the outcome, whatever, as it will have no affect on my life.
Please allow me to assure you I won't "be as sick as a parrot" if the European Court does not live up to my expectation although I think you are labouring under a delusion if you think there will be the slightest effect on my life whatever the outcome.
-
his evidence is BS...as I have shown. That cannot be disputed. You hang on to a beleif that there is evidence of the MCans guilt when there is absolutely nothing to suggest there is and everything to suggest there isnt.
Amaral can beleive what he likes...but if hes going to make calims he must have evidence to support them. same goes for Wolters.
It looks like no one supports amarals theories..if they do why are the PJ not investigating them....
Thats a reason I look forward to the ECHR because I think it will show what a complete pile of tripe amarals book is...lets see
You hope - I myself think it will be thrown out by the ECHR.
-
You hope - I myself think it will be thrown out by the ECHR.
For what reason do you think it will be thrown out....or is it just a wild guess.
Ive looked at the rules...you havent....I dont see any reason it will be rejected...lets see if you can give one. No one else has been able to
-
I think it was mentioned earlier in the thread that a decision about acceptance/rejection was expected in a matter of months.
All we have to do is wait and see.
My own preference is for a rejection - done, dusted and out of the way, never to be mentioned again
-
SC didn't think it was BS probably ECHR will think the same.
If you look at the judgement the portuguese courts were not interested in the veracity of amarals evidence...iaccording to the ECHR they will be. Thats the diference
-
I think it was mentioned earlier in the thread that a decision about acceptance/rejection was expected in a matter of months.
All we have to do is wait and see.
My own preference is for a rejection - done, dusted and out of the way, never to be mentioned again
I think that reflects the denial of Republican senators who sat with their backs to the video evidence of events they had lived through while the Trump mob succeeded in getting within feet of their prey, the American Vice President and his family.
Just as ignoring what happens in Washington just won't make it go away it will always be a fact however it turns out ~ what happens in the European Court regarding McCann and Healey V Portugal will end up being as "done and dusted" as the sceptic lexicon circa 2007 is preserved in aspic.
-
If rejected, it will have been rejected for being of no merit, not because of people ignoring it.
-
I think it was mentioned earlier in the thread that a decision about acceptance/rejection was expected in a matter of months.
All we have to do is wait and see.
My own preference is for a rejection - done, dusted and out of the way, never to be mentioned again
You know you are not obliged to follow details of this case don’t you? If it all irks you so much why not be like 99.99999% of the world’s population and take no further part in the online McCann chatter?
-
I think it was mentioned earlier in the thread that a decision about acceptance/rejection was expected in a matter of months.
All we have to do is wait and see.
My own preference is for a rejection - done, dusted and out of the way, never to be mentioned again
Everytyhing ive seen and read points to it being accepted with no reason whatsoever to reject it
-
As I said earlier, we should know in a few months.
-
Which is exactly why Amaral resigned his position. He was no longer an officer of the PJ when he published his book;
"I requested early retirement in order to be able to express myself freely" Page 3, The Truth of the Lie.
Maybe no matter how convinced the police are they must never publically go against "Article 6 § 2 of the Convention". IMO Article 6 § 2 of the Convention is a paramount right over the right to free speech of the investigating officer whether retired or active.
-
Which is exactly why Amaral resigned his position. He was no longer an officer of the PJ when he published his book;
"I requested early retirement in order to be able to express myself freely" Page 3, The Truth of the Lie.
Is that stipulated in the ECHR rules, i.e "once you retire you can defame your previous suspects"? Who told him that?
-
I'm quite sure the McCanns were upset by the book. They thought the final report said they were innocent, then a book which suggests they weren't becomes a best seller in Portugal and sells well in other countries too. The nightmare wasn't over, it was continuing.
I wonder how upsetting it was when the Supreme Court judges disclosed that the final report didn't say they were innocent.
still no cite supplied....please give cite as per forum rules
-
Is that stipulated in the ECHR rules, i.e "once you retire you can defame your previous suspects"? Who told him that?
Amaral requested early retirement so that he could publish a book that he knew would probably make him lots of money. Apparently it is libellous to say so though - it’s a 15% warning transgression.
-
I have received a warning for libel - could a mod kindly tell me who I have libelled please? If I don't know who or how I have libelled I am liable to libel again. Many thanks for your co-operation.
You must have libelled the McCanns.
-
You must have libelled the McCanns.
No, I’ve just told you who I allegedly libelled (by making a factual statement).
-
Is that stipulated in the ECHR rules, i.e "once you retire you can defame your previous suspects"? Who told him that?
As a serving PJ officer there were restrictions on Amaral's freedom of expression. Nothing to do with defamation, obviously. Not being as daft as people think, he knew that, which is why he resigned.
The judge of the first instance argued that his freedom of speech was still restricted, and used that argument to weight the balance between the competing rights in favour of the McCanns, but the appeal court disagreed.
-
Amaral requested early retirement so that he could publish a book that he knew would probably make him lots of money. Apparently it is libellous to say so though - it’s a 15% warning transgression.
But his book did make him lots of money.
-
As a serving PJ officer there were restrictions on Amaral's freedom of expression. Nothing to do with defamation, obviously. Not being as daft as people think, he knew that, which is why he resigned.
The judge of the first instance argued that his freedom of speech was still restricted, and used that argument to weight the balance between the competing rights in favour of the McCanns, but the appeal court disagreed.
What competing rights would that be...the McCanns right to agood name.If amaral had not libelled them as you have claimed...what rights are you talking about
-
No, I’ve just told you who I allegedly libelled (by making a factual statement).
You're obviously not a retired Portuguese police officer, or you'd have gotten away with it.
As a serving PJ officer there were restrictions on Amaral's freedom of expression. Nothing to do with defamation, obviously. Not being as daft as people think, he knew that, which is why he resigned.
The judge of the first instance argued that his freedom of speech was still restricted, and used that argument to weight the balance between the competing rights in favour of the McCanns, but the appeal court disagreed.
And hopefully the ECHR sees it differently. It should not matter whether the person is retired or not.
-
But his book did make him lots of money.
I know, so it is true to say that he resigned in order to cash in on the case IMO. But you mustn’t actually say so because you’ll get punished.
-
I'm quite sure the McCanns were upset by the book. They thought the final report said they were innocent, then a book which suggests they weren't becomes a best seller in Portugal and sells well in other countries too. The nightmare wasn't over, it was continuing.
I wonder how upsetting it was when the Supreme Court judges disclosed that the final report didn't say they were innocent.
You obviously dont have a cite because as far as I know what you are saying isnt true. Could you therefore amend your post to show you are stating opinion not fact.
-
But his book did make him lots of money.
Is that a problem ?
-
I know, so it is true to say that he resigned in order to cash in on the case. But you mustn’t actually say so because you’ll get punished.
As I have already stated, Amaral asked The PJ for permission to publish his book while still working for them. They refused, so he had to retire in order to cash in on the case.
-
Is that a problem ?
It could well be for Amaral.
-
It could well be for Amaral.
In what way?
-
In what way?
I would have thought that this was obvious.
-
I would have thought that this was obvious.
Not to me, it's not, so I'm curious as to what you come up with.
-
I would have thought that this was obvious.
Not to me. Please explain.
-
It could well be for Amaral.
The ECHR judgement, if it ever gets to that, has nothing to do with Amaral.
-
The ECHR judgement, if it ever gets to that, has nothing to do with Amaral.
He is going to look like a right pillock though, isn't he.
-
The ECHR judgement, if it ever gets to that, has nothing to do with Amaral.
Then why do the McCanns think a favourable outcome in the ECHR will save them paying over a million euro damages and interest to Amaral?
-
As I have already stated, Amaral asked The PJ for permission to publish his book while still working for them. They refused, so he had to retire in order to cash in on the case.
What should he have done? He had no fund to pay for defamation litigation. Should he just have sat back and let every British tabloid libel him? Would you?
-
Then why do the McCanns think a favourable outcome in the ECHR will save them paying over a million euro damages and interest to Amaral?
who says the McCanns think that...why would the mcCanns owe amarl that sort of money
-
What should he have done? He had no fund to pay for defamation litigation. Should he just have sat back and let every British tabloid libel him? Would you?
He hasnt sued the tabloids...he has sat back and let them libel him
-
He is going to look like a right pillock though, isn't he.
To who?
-
Then why do the McCanns think a favourable outcome in the ECHR will save them paying over a million euro damages and interest to Amaral?
That's the tabloids saying that and we all know how accurate they are over this sort of thing. Fake news
-
What should he have done? He had no fund to pay for defamation litigation. Should he just have sat back and let every British tabloid libel him? Would you?
Massive LOL
-
He hasnt sued the tabloids...he has sat back and let them libel him
I’m sure he thought the money he’s made from his book could be put to better use.
-
who says the McCanns think that...why would the mcCanns owe amarl that sort of money
Go back to the article that started this debate, https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/13975731/madeleine-mccann-parents-silence-ex-cop-setback/
"If they lose their right to appeal they will be ordered to pay Goncalo Amaral’s court costs and possible damages which could wipe out the entire Find Maddie Fund."
-
I’m sure he thought the money he’s made from his book could be put to better use.
Im sure he realsises he has no case...truth being the ultimate defence for alleged libel. I havent seen any accusation against him in the press that doesnt have such a defence.
-
Go back to the article that started this debate, https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/13975731/madeleine-mccann-parents-silence-ex-cop-setback/
"If they lose their right to appeal they will be ordered to pay Goncalo Amaral’s court costs and possible damages which could wipe out the entire Find Maddie Fund."
thats the sun...not the McCanns.
-
Im sure he realsises he has no case...truth being the ultimate defence for alleged libel. I havent seen any accusation against him in the press that doesnt have such a defence.
Amaral told his truth. That’s the end for him.
-
thats the sun...not the McCanns.
Do the McCanns have a paper?
-
Do the McCanns have a paper?
What are you on about Rob?
-
I know, so it is true to say that he resigned in order to cash in on the case IMO. But you mustn’t actually say so because you’ll get punished.
It isn't true to say Amaral resigned in order to cash in on the case. Unless he knew what the future held he had no way of knowing that his book would sell a lot of copies.
-
It isn't true to say Amaral resigned in order to cash in on the case. Unless he knew what the future held he had no way of knowing that his book would sell a lot of copies.
So are you saying he resigned before he got a publishing deal and are you saying he didn’t think anoyone would buy his book?
-
Then why do the McCanns think a favourable outcome in the ECHR will save them paying over a million euro damages and interest to Amaral?
I don't think they do think that. Are you able to post a quote from them?
-
What are you on about Rob?
The McCanns need newspapers etc to deliver their message. They need the Sun. So what does Davel mean "thats the sun...not the McCanns". Is he suggesting the Sun did not speak to the McCanns?
I don't think they do think that. Are you able to post a quote from them?
Only what the Sun says. Are you saying the Sun libelled them?
-
The McCanns need newspapers etc to deliver their message. They need the Sun. So what does Davel mean "thats the sun...not the McCanns". Is he suggesting the Sun did not speak to the McCanns?
Only what the Sun says. Are you saying the Sun libelled them?
Rob, csn I respectfully suggest you find out exactly what libel means before making any more posts on the subject.
-
Rob, csn I respectfully suggest you find out exactly what libel means before making any more posts on the subject.
I know what it means.
-
Has Eleanor answered this question?
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=8465.msg639886#msg639886
-
Has Eleanor answered this question?
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=8465.msg639886#msg639886
Of course not.
-
Has Eleanor answered this question?
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=8465.msg639886#msg639886
No-one is obliged to answer questions but I think it would be advantageous for avoiding disruption on the threads were you to set an example by sticking to the topic when possible,
This one is ~ Re: McCanns appeal to the European Court of Human Rights
-
Of course not.
In my neck of the woods what you are doing here is called 'cruisin' fur a bruisin' '. Please desist.
-
So are you saying he resigned before he got a publishing deal and are you saying he didn’t think anoyone would buy his book?
I'm saying no-one can predict if a book is going to sell well or not.
-
In my neck of the woods what you are doing here is called 'cruisin' fur a bruisin' '. Please desist.
Surely that is overstepping the mark Brietta. The discussion was on topic, but it appeared that Eleanor was getting herself into difficulty. I thought she should have deleted or at least amended her comment, but it was still there.
-
In my neck of the woods what you are doing here is called 'cruisin' fur a bruisin' '. Please desist.
Only in the rougher parts.
-
I know what it means.
So is this libellous from Brunt and Sky...
Sky
'Police Match Madeleine DNA To Hire Car'
8:26pm UK, Monday September 10, 2007
Portuguese police say they have found firm DNA evidence that the body of Madeleine McCann was in the boot of the family's hire car five weeks after she went missing, sources have told Sky News.
A policeman delivers flowers to the McCanns
Sky crime correspondent Martin Brunt, speaking from Portimao, said police were "adamant" they had found the most "damning" evidence yet implicating either one or both of the McCanns in their daughter's death
-
I'm saying no-one can predict if a book is going to sell well or not.
Cristovao's Book sold so why should Amaral think his wouldn't?
-
So is this libellous from Brunt and Sky...
Sky
'Police Match Madeleine DNA To Hire Car'
8:26pm UK, Monday September 10, 2007
Portuguese police say they have found firm DNA evidence that the body of Madeleine McCann was in the boot of the family's hire car five weeks after she went missing, sources have told Sky News.
A policeman delivers flowers to the McCanns
Sky crime correspondent Martin Brunt, speaking from Portimao, said police were "adamant" they had found the most "damning" evidence yet implicating either one or both of the McCanns in their daughter's death
You know as well as I do that was a devastating report for the reputation of the McCanns. I'd say it was "potentially libellous" on the part of Sky News.
-
You know as well as I do that was a devastating report for the reputation of the McCanns. I'd say it was "potentially libellous" on the part of Sky News.
its not libellous...Brunt is simply repeating the PJs claim
-
its not libellous...Brunt is simply repeating the PJs claim
But the PJ didn't make their claims public, did they? IMO it was a leak designed to undermine the McCanns.
-
Cristovao's Book sold so why should Amaral think his wouldn't?
I don't know what Amaral thought, and neither do you. I know what he said and if he was lying as has been implied that can't be proved imo.
It seems he made the correct decision to resign when the Portuguese judges ruled that his freedom of expression was not restricted, as it would have been had he stayed in his job.
-
But the PJ didn't make their claims public, did they? IMO it was a leak designed to undermine the McCanns.
Yet Brunt and Sky repeated it.
Looking at the evidence i think the PJ actually beleived it.
-
I don't know what Amaral thought, and neither do you. I know what he said and if he was lying as has been implied that can't be proved imo.
It seems he made the correct decision to resign when the Portuguese judges ruled that his freedom of expression was not restricted, as it would have been had he stayed in his job.
You dont know what the MCcanns thought but have claimed you do
-
Yet Brunt and Sky repeated it.
Looking at the evidence i think the PJ actually beleived it.
Two wrongs don't make a right. Three wrongs makes it even worse. It is a matter of training and learning how to interpret DNA results. Even the members on the forum would hold multiple views on the subject.
-
I'm saying no-one can predict if a book is going to sell well or not.
Even if it sold less than 10 copies the intent was still to cash in on the case IMO
-
I don't know what Amaral thought, and neither do you. I know what he said and if he was lying as has been implied that can't be proved imo.
It seems he made the correct decision to resign when the Portuguese judges ruled that his freedom of expression was not restricted, as it would have been had he stayed in his job.
He clearly wanted to go on to mouth off about the case, not retire quietly to tend his vegetable patch.
-
Surely that is overstepping the mark Brietta. The discussion was on topic, but it appeared that Eleanor was getting herself into difficulty. I thought she should have deleted or at least amended her comment, but it was still there.
I have replied to this on the appropriate thread, Rob.
-
I don't know what Amaral thought, and neither do you. I know what he said and if he was lying as has been implied that can't be proved imo.
It seems he made the correct decision to resign when the Portuguese judges ruled that his freedom of expression was not restricted, as it would have been had he stayed in his job.
He states quite clearly that his gripe was because he "responds to the need I felt to defend myself, having been discredited by the institution for which I worked for more than twenty-six years, without being given any chance to explain myself, publicly or within the institution itself."
His wife wrote of the ignominy of his last day at work when apparently no-one spoke to him.
To cap it all the tax guys caught up with his bad debt and helped themselves to a chunk of his pension until the debt was cleared.
Did it never occur to you that it might have been preferable for Amaral to resign and be able to claim the residue of his pension he was entitled to retain from the tax guys rather than gamble on perhaps losing it all if his forthcoming torture trial went badly for him.
Which in the event was rather prescient of him.
-
He states quite clearly that his gripe was because he "responds to the need I felt to defend myself, having been discredited by the institution for which I worked for more than twenty-six years, without being given any chance to explain myself, publicly or within the institution itself."
His wife wrote of the ignominy of his last day at work when apparently no-one spoke to him.
To cap it all the tax guys caught up with his bad debt and helped themselves to a chunk of his pension until the debt was cleared.
Did it never occur to you that it might have been preferable for Amaral to resign and be able to claim the residue of his pension he was entitled to retain from the tax guys rather than gamble on perhaps losing it all if his forthcoming torture trial went badly for him.
Which in the event was rather prescient of him.
Are we supposed to feel sorry for him or something?
Prescient "having or showing knowledge of events before they take place" Well his boss probably told him what was going to happen. That is the way it works when you get the boot.
-
Even if it sold less than 10 copies the intent was still to cash in on the case IMO
There’s no IMO about it. He wrote the book as a commercial endeavour. The book which was about the case was to make him money. He couldn’t be sure how much prior to publication but he knew it would earn him something. Therefore it is not an opinion to say he cashed in on the case. He did.
-
There’s no IMO about it. He wrote the book as a commercial endeavour. The book which was about the case was to make him money. He couldn’t be sure how much prior to publication but he knew it would earn him something. Therefore it is not an opinion to say he cashed in on the case. He did.
Did the issue of making money come into the appeal to the ECHR. I'm thinking the first court hearing went hard on the sales of the book and the copies on hand. But does any of that come into the current situation?
-
There’s no IMO about it. He wrote the book as a commercial endeavour. The book which was about the case was to make him money. He couldn’t be sure how much prior to publication but he knew it would earn him something. Therefore it is not an opinion to say he cashed in on the case. He did.
I tend to agree. Being about 500,000 euro in the hole, he's looking for a vehicle to generate income and make his point. The book is a loss leader really, as the publishing costs would always have outstripped demand. But it does generate the interest where the real money is - the TV work that has given him a comfortable living.
He's on the train; in fact he's still driving it.
(choo choo)
-
I tend to agree. Being about 500,000 euro in the hole, he's looking for a vehicle to generate income and make his point. The book is a loss leader really, as the publishing costs would always have outstripped demand. But it does generate the interest where the real money is - the TV work that has given him a comfortable living.
He's on the train; in fact he's still driving it.
(choo choo)
Was he half a million euros down before he wrote it? Careless!
-
Was he half a million euros down before he wrote it? Careless!
I thought General was referring to his loss of regular income, as a result of the early retirement. I Might be completely wrong?
-
I thought General was referring to his loss of regular income, as a result of the early retirement. I Might be completely wrong?
No one forced him to retire early.
-
No one forced him to retire early.
He had some job he wasn't happy with. OK no one forced him to retire but that was one form of pressure.
But whether or not was it voluntary? Even if voluntary he is without his usual income.
-
There’s no IMO about it. He wrote the book as a commercial endeavour. The book which was about the case was to make him money. He couldn’t be sure how much prior to publication but he knew it would earn him something. Therefore it is not an opinion to say he cashed in on the case. He did.
It seems you are unable to grasp the difference between believing something is a fact and demonstrating to others that it's a fact. We know that Amaral made money from his book, but we don't know if it was monetary gain which motivated him to write it. In your opinion that was his motive, but you have no evidence that you're right.
-
It seems you are unable to grasp the difference between believing something is a fact and demonstrating to others that it's a fact. We know that Amaral made money from his book, but we don't know if it was monetary gain which motivated him to write it. In your opinion that was his motive, but you have no evidence that you're right.
If monetary gain was not one of his motives why did he seek out a publisher (or why did a publisher seek him out) and why did he put a price on the book and why did he not donate all the money to charity? Do you think Summers and Swann were motivated by altruistic reasons then? Amaral knew there was money to be made from his side of the story, and don't pretend he did not.
-
He had some job he wasn't happy with. OK no one forced him to retire but that was one form of pressure.
But whether or not was it voluntary? Even if voluntary he is without his usual income.
He retired to become a published author. He knew he had a story to tell that lots of people would want to read as he had presided over the most talked about case in his country's recent history. He and his publisher knew he was sitting on a goldmine and only a very naive person would think he hadn't cottoned onto this fact.
-
It seems you are unable to grasp the difference between believing something is a fact and demonstrating to others that it's a fact. We know that Amaral made money from his book, but we don't know if it was monetary gain which motivated him to write it. In your opinion that was his motive, but you have no evidence that you're right.
Rather like my hypothesis of Mr Sillence’s actions last week for which certain individuals cried holy murder.
It’s a rum old world.
-
Rather like my hypothesis of Mr Sillence’s actions last week for which certain individuals cried holy murder.
It’s a rum old world.
I wondered when you'd pipe up with that old mantra. You are wrong and here's why:
you claimed Mr Sillence was a "hustler" and was paid for his interview in which you claimed he lied, and provided not one "scintilla" (copywrite Faithlilly) of evidence to back up your claim. Furthermore you challenged Mr Sillence to sue you, and claimed you didn't care if John got into legal trouble for your post.
I have stated as fact that Amaral cashed in on the case, which is indisputable however you want to look at it. I also have the backing of two mods who agree with me that "Amaral cashed in on the case" is an indisputable fact.
-
I thought General was referring to his loss of regular income, as a result of the early retirement. I Might be completely wrong?
A large amount of the Book Money was sequestered by The Court and frozen and not on behalf of The McCanns. Amaral owed a lot of money elsewhere.
-
A large amount of the Book Money was sequestered by The Court and frozen and not on behalf of The McCanns. Amaral owed a lot of money elsewhere.
Not sure why the state of his finances is relevant. Does it have a bearing on the case?
-
Not sure why the state of his finances is relevant. Does it have a bearing on the case?
Just explaining things to Rob.
-
Just explaining things to Rob.
Was money sequestered by anyone else? I’ve never heard that before.Then again I’m not that much interested in individual’s private income.....mainly because it’s private.
-
He retired to become a published author. He knew he had a story to tell that lots of people would want to read as he had presided over the most talked about case in his country's recent history. He and his publisher knew he was sitting on a goldmine and only a very naive person would think he hadn't cottoned onto this fact.
You can speculate until the cows come home, but it remains speculation, not fact.
-
You can speculate until the cows come home, but it remains speculation, not fact.
Just like your claim that the McCanns thought that the archiving report proved them innocent. Despite many requests you failed to provide a cite so it's speculation
-
Just like your claim that the McCanns thought that the archiving report proved them innocent. Despite many requests you failed to provide a cite so it's speculation
I provided my cite with my original post.
-
You can speculate until the cows come home, but it remains speculation, not fact.
I am not speculating, the facts are there for all to see.
-
I provided my cite with my original post.
You didn't.. You claimed.. A witness said.. That is not a cite as it can't be checked. It has no verification so its opinion
I'm fairly sure what you said is not true... Just speculation
-
You can speculate until the cows come home, but it remains speculation, not fact.
why did you not give Wonderfulspam similar advice and a warning when he wrote "Amaral solved the case in 2007"? Instead you "liked" his post. Why?
-
Was money sequestered by anyone else? I’ve never heard that before.Then again I’m not that much interested in individual’s private income.....mainly because it’s private.
There were two Mortgages to Mortgage Companies on properties bought and or rolled over by Amaral and his wife. And some other things that I can't specifically remember, possibly The Jaguar which appeared to have been repossessed, having been bought in the name of a company registered to Amaral which owned nothing else.
Amaral did apparently owe a lot of money at the time, going back to 2002, after a Court case with his brother which Amaral lost. For an Inspector in The PJ this was not good. So of course it was of interest.
-
You can speculate until the cows come home, but it remains speculation, not fact.
But remains a subject for discussion.
-
There were two Mortgages to Mortgage Companies on properties bought and or rolled over by Amaral and his wife. And some other things that I can't specifically remember, possibly The Jaguar which appeared to have been repossessed, having been bought in the name of a company registered to Amaral which owned nothing else.
Amaral did apparently owe a lot of money at the time, going back to 2002, after a Court case with his brother which Amaral lost. For an Inspector in The PJ this was not good. So of course it was of interest.
Quite. An upholder of the law in such serious financial difficulties is something of a liability IMO.
-
But remains a subject for discussion.
If it's OK to say Summers and Swann cashed in on the case, then it's OK to say so too did Amaral. Others have certainly accused the McCanns of cashing in on their daughter's disappearance on this forum without receiving warning points or having their posts removed.
-
I am getting confused as to what we are allowed to say on this forum. It's a debate but how can you debate properly when you have to watch every word you say. It really is a turn off.
-
Quite. An upholder of the law in such serious financial difficulties is something of a liability IMO.
Amaral wasn't in Financial Difficulties. These Corporate Bodies ignored what he owed and so did he.
-
If it's OK to say Summers and Swann cashed in on the case, then it's OK to say so too did Amaral. Others have certainly accused the McCanns of cashing in on their daughter's disappearance on this forum without receiving warning points or having their posts removed.
Sometimes it's what you don't say that matters. Me I mean and not you.
-
I am getting confused as to what we are allowed to say on this forum. It's a debate but how can you debate properly when you have to watch every word you say. It really is a turn off.
Think before you speak.
-
Quite. An upholder of the law in such serious financial difficulties is something of a liability IMO.
Why would that be?
-
But remains a subject for discussion.
Provided posters remember not to post opinion as fact, which is against forum rules.
-
Think before you speak.
You too also.
-
Why would that be?
Please don't ask silly questions. And no one is obliged to answer them anyway.
-
You too also.
I do my best and try to be clear and unambiguous - usually 8(0(*
-
Isn’t repeating a libel also against the law?
Ah yes...
‘There is a long-standing common law rule that it is no defence to an action for defamation for the defendant to prove that he or she was only repeating what someone else had said (known as the “repetition rule”).’
Doh !!!
-
Provided posters remember not to post opinion as fact, which is against forum rules.
Amaral solved the case in 2007
-
Why would that be?
I couldn't possibly say. 8**8:/:
-
Please don't ask silly questions. And no one is obliged to answer them anyway.
Put it away.
-
I couldn't possibly say. 8**8:/:
Thought not.
-
If it's OK to say Summers and Swann cashed in on the case, then it's OK to say so too did Amaral. Others have certainly accused the McCanns of cashing in on their daughter's disappearance on this forum without receiving warning points or having their posts removed.
I don't understand why Vertigo Swirl got warning points for saying Amaral cashed in on Madeleine's disappearance? Of course he got money for his book otherwise he wouldn't have put it up for sale would he? What's wrong with VS's post?
-
I don't understand why Vertigo Swirl got warning points for saying Amaral cashed in on Madeleine's disappearance? Of course he got money for his book otherwise he wouldn't have put it up for sale would he? What's wrong with VS's post?
good question.
-
I don't understand why Vertigo Swirl got warning points for saying Amaral cashed in on Madeleine's disappearance? Of course he got money for his book otherwise he wouldn't have put it up for sale would he? What's wrong with VS's post?
I think it’s because he suggested that was Amaral’s motivation. Amaral says that it was to defend his honour and it is not up to us to second guess him. I also received points for pointing out that Mr Sillence was probably paid by the Sun for his story.
Fair is fair I suppose.
-
I don't understand why Vertigo Swirl got warning points for saying Amaral cashed in on Madeleine's disappearance? Of course he got money for his book otherwise he wouldn't have put it up for sale would he? What's wrong with VS's post?
It maybe that he wrote the book to portray his role in the affair. The money might be considered as incidental, as it was with Kate's book.
-
I think it’s because he suggested that was Amaral’s motivation. Amaral says that it was to defend his honour and it is not up to us to second guess him. I also received points for pointing out that Mr Sillence was probably paid by the Sun for his story.
Fair is fair I suppose.
He? He?? Who are you talking about?
Amaral may well have resigned to "defend his honour" and the best and most lucrative way he knew how to do that was to cash in on the case by writing a book and appearing on countless TV programmes for which he charged large sums of cash. He could only have done this by retiring from the police. You made a statement of fact about Sillence (no "probablys" or "IMOs") based on zero evidence, and with a cavalier attitude that you couldn't care less about being sued or about John getting into legal hotw..er. I believe you were put on moderation for your efforts.
ETA: What is supremely ironic about your obvious libel of Sillence is that when I asked G-Unit (twice) whether or not she felt your post was acceptable she both ignored my posts and let your post stand.
-
Any further off topic posts will attract sanctions.
-
Any further off topic posts will attract sanctions.
What? Warning Points?
-
It maybe that he wrote the book to portray his role in the affair. The money might be considered as incidental, as it was with Kate's book.
'Incidental'. okaaay.
-
There were two Mortgages to Mortgage Companies on properties bought and or rolled over by Amaral and his wife. And some other things that I can't specifically remember, possibly The Jaguar which appeared to have been repossessed, having been bought in the name of a company registered to Amaral which owned nothing else.
Amaral did apparently owe a lot of money at the time, going back to 2002, after a Court case with his brother which Amaral lost. For an Inspector in The PJ this was not good. So of course it was of interest.
In my opinion a senior police officer obviously living beyond his means resulting in substantial debt is very much a cause for concern whatever jurisdiction he happens to be from.
-
'Incidental'. okaaay.
That it is available free of charge on the internet suggests to me that money is not his prime motivator.
-
It maybe that he wrote the book to portray his role in the affair. The money might be considered as incidental, as it was with Kate's book.
Kate's book was written for the specific purpose of raising money for Madeleine's fund to enable the search for Madeleine to continue.
At the time no-one was looking for that little girl and hadn't been since the archiving of her case in 2008 ... only her parents were.
They raised money not for diamond ear studs or Jaguar cars ... they needed money to finance their desperate search for Madelaine.
-
In my opinion a senior police officer obviously living beyond his means resulting in substantial debt is very much a cause for concern whatever jurisdiction he happens to be from.
That is probably half of most police forces....in fact most workforces.
-
That it is available free of charge on the internet suggests to me that money is not his prime motivator.
Did he do that? Didn't know his pen name is Anna Esse.
-
In my opinion a senior police officer obviously living beyond his means resulting in substantial debt is very much a cause for concern whatever jurisdiction he happens to be from.
Exactly. And this information was all over The Internet at the time.
-
Did he do that? Didn't know his pen name is Anna Esse.
I didn't say He made it available, but if he objected he would have done something about it - IMO
-
That it is available free of charge on the internet suggests to me that money is not his prime motivator.
Amaral had already Coined in many thousands by then.
-
Amaral had already Coined in many thousands by then.
So? Do you see this as a problem ?
-
Kate's book was written for the specific purpose of raising money for Madeleine's fund to enable the search for Madeleine to continue.
At the time no-one was looking for that little girl and hadn't been since the archiving of her case in 2008 ... only her parents were.
They raised money not for diamond ear studs or Jaguar cars ... they needed money to finance their desperate search for Madelaine.
You're missing the IMO from this post.
-
So? Do you see this as a problem ?
I am not obliged to answer your silly questions.
-
That it is available free of charge on the internet suggests to me that money is not his prime motivator.
LOL. Did Amaral give permission for his book to be published for free on the internet? If so please provide a cite. also, was it available for free from Day One of publication, or only after he'd made his big sack of cash?
-
I am not obliged to answer your silly questions.
True, but it suggests to me that you haven't really an answer beyond your intense dislike for Amaral.
-
Kate's book was written for the specific purpose of raising money for Madeleine's fund to enable the search for Madeleine to continue.
At the time no-one was looking for that little girl and hadn't been since the archiving of her case in 2008 ... only her parents were.
They raised money not for diamond ear studs or Jaguar cars ... they needed money to finance their desperate search for Madelaine.
Well, that's your opinion.
I believe it was also to get her account of what she said happened across also. that's my opinion of the book she wrote.
Kill to birds with one stone as they say imo
-
You're missing the IMO from this post.
And you're missing the IMO from this post, IMO.
-
Well, that's your opinion.
I believe it was also to get her account of what she said happened across also. that's my opinion of the book she wrote.
Kill to birds with one stone as they say imo
You mean Kate wrote it not to cash in on Madeleine's disappearance...?!
-
And you're missing the IMO from this post, IMO.
It isn't my opinion that Brietta's post contained opinion dressed as fact.
It's a fact.
-
True, but it suggests to me that you haven't really an answer beyond your intense dislike for Amaral.
It may suggest to you whatever you like. It is only in your opinion. My reasons will have to remain a mystery.
-
You mean Kate wrote it not to cash in on Madeleine's disappearance...?!
I wonder which book sold the best (prior to being consigned to the bargain bin at Woolies)?
-
It may suggest to you whatever you like. It is only in your opinion. My reasons will have to remain a mystery.
Ever the enema enigma, eh ?
-
It isn't my opinion that Brietta's post contained opinion dressed as fact.
It's a fact.
No, it's a fact in your opinion.
-
Ever the enema enigma, eh ?
No. Just not open to a wind up.
-
I wonder which book sold the best (prior to being consigned to the bargain bin at Woolies)?
What difference does it make? I wonder which author personally profited the most from their book and TV appearances? Who bought the biggest diamond ear stud? Let's think....
-
What difference does it make? I wonder which author personally profited the most from their book and TV appearances? Who bought the biggest diamond ear stud? Let's think....
Kate?
-
Kate?
Is the WRONG answer! You have one more chance at this, good luck!
-
his evidence is BS...as I have shown. That cannot be disputed. You hang on to a beleif that there is evidence of the MCans guilt when there is absolutely nothing to suggest there is and everything to suggest there isnt.
Amaral can beleive what he likes...but if hes going to make calims he must have evidence to support them. same goes for Wolters.
It looks like no one supports amarals theories..if they do why are the PJ not investigating them....
Thats a reason I look forward to the ECHR because I think it will show what a complete pile of tripe amarals book is...lets see
What leads you to believe that the PJ haven't been pursuing Amaral's theories?
-
What leads you to believe that the PJ haven't been pursuing Amaral's theories?
Amarals theories aren't based on evidence and the Pj can't keep a secret
-
Is the WRONG answer! You have one more chance at this, good luck!
So you knew all along, so it appears you believe you think it does make a difference, despite your protestations to the contrary. And I'm not sure what we're even talking about, so square that particular circle.
-
Amarals theories aren't based on evidence and the Pj can't keep a secret
Apparently he's making yet another appearance in this latest 3 parter for Discovery - so the 'secret' is nothing of the sort.
-
No, it's a fact in your opinion.
Let's look at what she said shall we.....
'Kate's book was written for the specific purpose of raising money for Madeleine's fund to enable the search for Madeleine to continue.'
How is that not an opinion?
-
Apparently he's making yet another appearance in this latest 3 parter for Discovery - so the 'secret' is nothing of the sort.
FYI Amaral doesn't work for the PJ anymore though he does still seem to act as a conduit of information from them to the wider world.
-
Let's look at what she said shall we.....
'Kate's book was written for the specific purpose of raising money for Madeleine's fund to enable the search for Madeleine to continue.'
How is that not an opinion?
Because it is a fact. She wrote a book and all proceeds went to the fund as verified by the fund accounts. The Fund’s aim is to help with the search for Madeleine. If you didpute any of this then kindly provide evidence for your claims, with cites, and remember not to libel or goad anyone, otherwise you’ll be in big trub.
-
Because it is a fact. She wrote a book and all proceeds went to the fund as verified by the fund accounts. The Fund’s aim is to help with the search for Madeleine. If you didpute any of this then kindly provide evidence for your claims, with cites, and remember not to libel or goad anyone, otherwise you’ll be in big trub.
We only have Kate's word that...
'the book was written for the specific purpose of raising money for Madeleine's fund to enable the search for Madeleine to coninue.'
It's quite possible the book was also written with specific purpose to counter the allegations made against them & present their version of events.
-
He retired to become a published author. He knew he had a story to tell that lots of people would want to read as he had presided over the most talked about case in his country's recent history. He and his publisher knew he was sitting on a goldmine and only a very naive person would think he hadn't cottoned onto this fact.
I was looking at the reason he retired from the police.
-
We only have Kate's word that...
'the book was written for the specific purpose of raising money for Madeleine's fund to enable the search for Madeleine to coninue.'
It's quite possible the book was also written with specific purpose to counter the allegations made against them & present their version of events.
I always thought that was the main reason, though the cash it raised was obviously handy.
-
We only have Kate's word that...
'the book was written for the specific purpose of raising money for Madeleine's fund to enable the search for Madeleine to coninue.'
It's quite possible the book was also written with specific purpose to counter the allegations made against them & present their version of events.
And that’s your opnion not a fact.
-
I was looking at the reason he retired from the police.
There comes a time in life when you get sick of the shit you have to deal with on a daily basis, and early retirement has great attraction.
-
I was looking at the reason he retired from the police.
Amaral retired from The PJ because they wouldn't give him permission to publish his Book while still employed by them.
-
There comes a time in life when you get sick of the shit you have to deal with on a daily basis, and early retirement has great attraction.
Especially when it means you can exploit your former position to pursue a lucrative career as a talking head and author about the most famous missing person case ever.
-
And that’s your opnion not a fact.
If you say so, then it shouldn't be too difficult to prove Kate's intentions, you just need to ask Kate, & she has to be telling the absolute truth.
Get back to me when that happens.
Thanks.
-
If you say so, then it shouldn't be too difficult to prove Kate's intentions, you just need to ask Kate, & she has to be telling the absolute truth.
Get back to me when that happens.
Thanks.
I don’t need to ask anyone anything, it’s self evident.
-
I don’t need to ask anyone anything, it’s self evident.
What's self evident is that in order to know if the statement were utterly true, you would have to be Kate McCann.
-
Amaral retired from The PJ because they wouldn't give him permission to publish his Book while still employed by them.
The police sign some sort of declaration that they won't talk about cases they are working on, but I'm surprised that declaration stops when they resign. Maybe the stick is the termination of employment.
-
Who actually believes Amaral didn’t know in advance that the book was going to be huge as claimed by G-Unit? This article rather puts it into context - his publisher had an initial print run of 40,000 copies.
A copper without shame: Maddie's top detective blames everyone but himself
21:10, 25 July 2008
By Richard Pendlebury for the Daily Mail
El Corte Ingles is Lisbon's grandest department store. The name loosely translates as 'The English Style', though 'corte' can also mean a cut, as from a knife.
Perhaps the ambiguity amused super sleuth Goncalo Amaral, for this was the location he chose on Thursday evening to launch the 'confidencial' inside story of his most sensational case: the mystery of Madeleine McCann.
The portly detective sat before a table piled high with his newly published paperback memoir of the investigation, ready to be signed and sold at £10 apiece. Hundreds of local people had queued to see him.
Enlarge Portugal's former top investigator Goncalo Amaral poses with his book entitled 'Maddie:The Truth about the Lie'
Portugal's former top investigator Goncalo Amaral poses with his book entitled 'Maddie:The Truth about the Lie'
As the officer in charge of the hunt for Madeleine from the night she vanished until he was fired from the case last October, Amaral, 48, presided over the shredding of the reputation of the Portuguese CID.
With a perjury charge still hanging over him, connected to an alleged assault in a separate missing-child case, he has just taken early retirement to publish his book.
'I want to clear my name,' he says in the blurb. To this end, 40,000 copies of Maddie: A Verdade Da Mentira (The Truth Of The Lie) are to be printed in Portuguese alone. An English translation is being arranged, and lucrative international rights are being neglotiated.
-
What's self evident is that in order to know if the statement were utterly true, you would have to be Kate McCann.
From someone who repeatedly claims to “know” the McCanns murdered their child you’ve got a bloody cheek to make an issue out of this.
-
From someone who repeatedly claims to “know” the McCanns murdered their child you’ve got a bloody cheek to make an issue out of this.
So you finally accept I'm right?
-
From someone who repeatedly claims to “know” the McCanns murdered their child you’ve got a bloody cheek to make an issue out of this.
That post is libelous isn't it? Does spam claim " to “know” the McCanns murdered their child" Spam is this true?
-
The police sign some sort of declaration that they won't talk about cases they are working on, but I'm surprised that declaration stops when they resign. Maybe the stick is the termination of employment.
So am I surprised. The Court of The First Instance thought it shouldn't end on retirement. But no one takes any notice of them it seems.
-
So you finally accept I'm right?
No.
-
That post is libelous isn't it? Does spam claim " to “know” the McCanns murdered their child" Spam is this true?
Yes he does. Most of his stupid posts get deleted though so no way of providing a cite.
-
That post is libelous isn't it? Does spam claim " to “know” the McCanns murdered their child" Spam is this true?
Yes he does. Which is why so many of his comments get deleted. These are the easy ones to moderate.
-
I have cited what a witness told the court. It was hearsay evidence, but I have no reason to believe he was lying.
What witness... What exactly did they say. Your post is not a cite.
You make a big fuss about providing cites yet fail to do so yourself
Kate said the window was open.. I have no reason to believe she was lying.. But it doesn't make it a fact. You are posting your opinion as fact
-
What witness... What exactly did they say. Your post is not a cite.
I think you're quite capable of finding my cite, but to prevent further forum disruption (imo) due to you hounding me to repeat it here it is.
AP – They were surprised with the book because the final Report said they were innocent.
GP – Have you read the final report?
AP says "no".
GP – How do you know then what its conclusions are?
AP says the McCanns told him.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=2304.msg75521#msg75521
-
I think you're quite capable of finding my cite, but to prevent further forum disruption (imo) due to you hounding me to repeat it here it is.
AP – They were surprised with the book because the final Report said they were innocent.
GP – Have you read the final report?
AP says "no".
GP – How do you know then what its conclusions are?
AP says the McCanns told him.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=2304.msg75521#msg75521
So the McCanns didn't say it... You are relying on a translation of a court report that cannot be verified
It's not up to me to find it... Its up to you to provide it
-
So the McCanns didn't say it... You are relying on a translation of a court report that cannot be verified
It's not up to me to find it... Its up to you to provide it
We have no cause to think that the court report is in error. Have you?
-
We have no cause to think that the court report is in error. Have you?
Yes... And hearsay evidence cannot be relied upon to be accurate
-
Yes
Explain please?
-
Explain please?
According to the Guardian Almeida testified that the main evidence against the McCanns was the dog alerts... Yet that isn't in the transcript we have here
-
According to the Guardian Almeida testified that the main evidence against the McCanns was the dog alerts... Yet that isn't in the transcript we have here
There was a successful attempt by the McCanns in September 2009 to ban Amaral's book before the defamation trial began. The testimony you refer to occured during a successful appeal against the ban in October 2010, not during the 'libel' trial. We don't have any transcripts of the testimony from the book-banning actions as far as I know.
-
According to the Guardian Almeida testified that the main evidence against the McCanns was the dog alerts... Yet that isn't in the transcript we have here
Do you have a cite ?
-
There was a successful attempt by the McCanns in September 2009 to ban Amaral's book before the defamation trial began. The testimony you refer to occured during a successful appeal against the ban in October 2010, not during the 'libel' trial. We don't have any transcripts of the testimony from the book-banning actions as far as I know.
You still cannot rely on your cite a sbeing an accurate account of what the Mcanns thought
as to your answer surely its totally damning that for the PJ the main evidence wa sthe dog alerts....which were not evidence
-
You still cannot rely on your cite a sbeing an accurate account of what the Mcanns thought
as to your answer surely its totally damning that for the PJ the main evidence wa sthe dog alerts....which were not evidence
Do you have the cite Faithlilly asked for?
-
You still cannot rely on your cite a sbeing an accurate account of what the Mcanns thought
as to your answer surely its totally damning that for the PJ the main evidence wa sthe dog alerts....which were not evidence
I have provided a cite where a witness testifies that the McCanns told him that the final report said they were innocent.
You can accept or reject the cite but it exists and it was provided.
-
I have provided a cite where a witness testifies that the McCanns told him that the final report said they were innocent.
You can accept or reject the cite but it exists and it was provided.
You eventually supplied a cite which wasn't convincing.. Imo
-
You eventually supplied a cite which wasn't convincing.. Imo
There's no "eventually" about it. I supplied the cite with my post on the subject, and was harassed into supplying it again.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=8465.msg639767#msg639767
-
You eventually supplied a cite which wasn't convincing.. Imo
Eventually? I have been waiting 10 hours for a cite from you...a cite Rob has also asked you for. Do you have a cite for your claim re:the Guardian article?
-
Eventually? I have been waiting 10 hours for a cite from you...a cite Rob has also asked you for. Do you have a cite for your claim re:the Guardian article?
I haven't seen your request... I've posted it several times. Gunit has confirmed it's authenticity. Does it surprise you.. I'll see if I ca find it
-
Eventually? I have been waiting 10 hours for a cite from you...a cite Rob has also asked you for. Do you have a cite for your claim re:the Guardian article?
Can you link to the original cite request please?
-
Can you link to the original cite request please?
Chief Inspector Tavares de Almeida said he believed the British child had died in her family's apartment in the Algarve resort of Praia da Luz on the day she went missing. He told the court the main evidence for this was the findings of British police sniffer dogs sent to Portugal
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/uk/2010/jan/12/madeleine-mccann-parents-defamation-book
-
. He told the court the main evidence for this was the findings of British police sniffer dogs sent to Portugal
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/uk/2010/jan/12/madeleine-mccann-parents-defamation-book
It was the forum link I was wanting
-
Chief Inspector Tavares de Almeida said he believed the British child had died in her family's apartment in the Algarve resort of Praia da Luz on the day she went missing. He told the court the main evidence for this was the findings of British police sniffer dogs sent to Portugal
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/uk/2010/jan/12/madeleine-mccann-parents-defamation-book
"Chief Inspector Tavares de Almeida said he believed the British child had died in her family's apartment in the Algarve resort of Praia da Luz on the day she went missing. He told the court the main evidence for this was the findings of British police sniffer dogs sent to Portugal to examine the flat. The McCanns' lawyer, Isabel Duarte, challenged this claim, arguing that the results from sniffer dogs did not constitute proof and were not allowed as evidence in the case."
And the point was?
-
"Chief Inspector Tavares de Almeida said he believed the British child had died in her family's apartment in the Algarve resort of Praia da Luz on the day she went missing. He told the court the main evidence for this was the findings of British police sniffer dogs sent to Portugal to examine the flat. The McCanns' lawyer, Isabel Duarte, challenged this claim, arguing that the results from sniffer dogs did not constitute proof and were not allowed as evidence in the case."
And the point was?
Read the thread and you will understand
-
Chief Inspector Tavares de Almeida said he believed the British child had died in her family's apartment in the Algarve resort of Praia da Luz on the day she went missing. He told the court the main evidence for this was the findings of British police sniffer dogs sent to Portugal
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/uk/2010/jan/12/madeleine-mccann-parents-defamation-book
This is from the 2010 trial. The libel transcript on this site is from 2013.
-
Eventually? I have been waiting 10 hours for a cite from you...a cite Rob has also asked you for. Do you have a cite for your claim re:the Guardian article?
It's not my fault if you failed to notice the cite provided in my post and spent time asking for something which was already present.
The date of the Guardian story was 12th January 2010. The libel trial witnesses were heard in 2013, three years later. Thanks to the work of Anne Guedes we have transcripts of what the trial witnesses told the court. As far as I know no transcripts exist of the witness statements given in 2009/10 during the hearings concerning the book banning injunction.
-
It's not my fault if you failed to notice the cite provided in my post and spent time asking for something which was already present.
The date of the Guardian story was 12th January 2010. The libel trial witnesses were heard in 2013, three years later. Thanks to the work of Anne Guedes we have transcripts of what the trial witnesses told the court. As far as I know no transcripts exist of the witness statements given in 2009/10 during the hearings concerning the book banning injunction.
I think, or hope, that was for Davel? My request for a cite was for Davel, not you.
As to the rest of your post, I absolutely agree.
-
I think, or hope, that was for Davel? My request for a cite was for Davel, not you.
As to the rest of your post, I absolutely agree.
I do apologise, I did think I was replying to Davel.
-
Its in French and communicated to Portugal on 14/01/2021.
QUATRIÈME SECTION
Requête no 57195/17
Gerald Patrick MCCANN et Kate Marie HEALY
contre le Portugal
introduite le 28 juillet 2017
OBJET DE L’AFFAIRE
La requête concerne des allégations faites par G.A., ancien inspecteur de la police judiciaire, dans un livre et un documentaire diffusé sur la chaîne de télévision T., puis mis en vente sous la forme d’un DVD, au sujet de l’implication des requérants dans la disparition de leur fille, survenue le 3 mai 2007 dans le Sud du Portugal. Elle concerne aussi l’action en responsabilité civile introduite par les requérants contre G.A., son éditeur et la chaîne de télévision T., à l’issue de laquelle ils ont été déboutés.
Invoquant les articles 6 §§ 1 et 2, 8 et 10 § 2 de la Convention, les requérants affirment que les allégations faites par G.A. dans le livre et le documentaire en question ont porté atteinte à leur droit au respect de leur vie privée et leur droit à la présomption d’innocence. Ils se plaignent que les juridictions internes n’ont pas procédé à une mise en balance des intérêts en jeu conformément aux critères énoncés dans la jurisprudence de la Cour.
Par ailleurs, toujours sous l’angle des articles 6 §§ 1 et 2, 8 et 10 § 2 de la Convention, ils plaident que la motivation contenue dans les décisions rendues, les 31 janvier et 21 mars 2017, par la Cour suprême à l’issue de l’action en responsabilité civile a également violé leur droit à la présomption d’innocence.
QUESTIONS AUX PARTIES
1. Y a-t-il eu atteinte au droit des requérants au respect de leur vie privée, au sens de l’article 8 § 1 de la Convention (voir, Axel Springer AG c. Allemagne [GC], no 39954/08, § 83, 7 février 2012 ; et Larrañaga Arando et autres c. Espagne (déc.), nos 73911/16, 233/17 3086/17 et 5155/17, § 42, 25 juin 2019) eu égard notamment aux allégations faites par G.A. dans le livre et le documentaire litigieux ?
En particulier, l’État défendeur a-t-il respecté ses obligations positives visant à garantir aux requérants le droit au respect de leur « vie privée », au sens de l’article 8 de la Convention ?
En outre, les juridictions internes ont-elles effectué, dans leurs décisions, une mise en balance adéquate, dans le respect des critères établis par la jurisprudence de la Cour, entre le droit des requérants au respect de leur vie privée et le droit des parties adverses à la liberté d’expression (voir, Von Hannover (no 2) [GC], nos 40660/08 et 60641/08, §§ 108-113, CEDH 2012, Axel Springer AG, précité, §§ 89-95, et Bédat c. Suisse [GC], no 56925/08, §§ 52-54, ECHR 2016) ?
2. La présomption d’innocence garantie par l’article 6 § 2 de la Convention a-t-elle été respectée en l’espèce eu égard à la motivation contenue dans les décisions rendues, les 31 janvier et 21 mars 2017, par la Cour suprême (voir, Allen c. Royaume-Uni [GC], no 25424/09, § 94, CEDH 2013) ?
-
Case details.
Document Type
Communicated Case
Title
MCCANN ET HEALY c. PORTUGAL
App. No(s).
57195/17
Importance Level
3
Respondent State(s)
Portugal
Conclusion(s)
Affaire communiquée
Affaire communiquée
Article(s)
6
6-2
8
8-1
Keywords
(Art. 6) Right to a fair trial
(Art. 8) Right to respect for private and family life
Date
14/01/2021
-
Its in French and communicated to Portugal on 14/01/2021.
QUATRIÈME SECTION
Requête no 57195/17
Gerald Patrick MCCANN et Kate Marie HEALY
contre le Portugal
introduite le 28 juillet 2017
OBJET DE L’AFFAIRE
La requête concerne des allégations faites par G.A., ancien inspecteur de la police judiciaire, dans un livre et un documentaire diffusé sur la chaîne de télévision T., puis mis en vente sous la forme d’un DVD, au sujet de l’implication des requérants dans la disparition de leur fille, survenue le 3 mai 2007 dans le Sud du Portugal. Elle concerne aussi l’action en responsabilité civile introduite par les requérants contre G.A., son éditeur et la chaîne de télévision T., à l’issue de laquelle ils ont été déboutés.
Invoquant les articles 6 §§ 1 et 2, 8 et 10 § 2 de la Convention, les requérants affirment que les allégations faites par G.A. dans le livre et le documentaire en question ont porté atteinte à leur droit au respect de leur vie privée et leur droit à la présomption d’innocence. Ils se plaignent que les juridictions internes n’ont pas procédé à une mise en balance des intérêts en jeu conformément aux critères énoncés dans la jurisprudence de la Cour.
Par ailleurs, toujours sous l’angle des articles 6 §§ 1 et 2, 8 et 10 § 2 de la Convention, ils plaident que la motivation contenue dans les décisions rendues, les 31 janvier et 21 mars 2017, par la Cour suprême à l’issue de l’action en responsabilité civile a également violé leur droit à la présomption d’innocence.
QUESTIONS AUX PARTIES
1. Y a-t-il eu atteinte au droit des requérants au respect de leur vie privée, au sens de l’article 8 § 1 de la Convention (voir, Axel Springer AG c. Allemagne [GC], no 39954/08, § 83, 7 février 2012 ; et Larrañaga Arando et autres c. Espagne (déc.), nos 73911/16, 233/17 3086/17 et 5155/17, § 42, 25 juin 2019) eu égard notamment aux allégations faites par G.A. dans le livre et le documentaire litigieux ?
En particulier, l’État défendeur a-t-il respecté ses obligations positives visant à garantir aux requérants le droit au respect de leur « vie privée », au sens de l’article 8 de la Convention ?
En outre, les juridictions internes ont-elles effectué, dans leurs décisions, une mise en balance adéquate, dans le respect des critères établis par la jurisprudence de la Cour, entre le droit des requérants au respect de leur vie privée et le droit des parties adverses à la liberté d’expression (voir, Von Hannover (no 2) [GC], nos 40660/08 et 60641/08, §§ 108-113, CEDH 2012, Axel Springer AG, précité, §§ 89-95, et Bédat c. Suisse [GC], no 56925/08, §§ 52-54, ECHR 2016) ?
2. La présomption d’innocence garantie par l’article 6 § 2 de la Convention a-t-elle été respectée en l’espèce eu égard à la motivation contenue dans les décisions rendues, les 31 janvier et 21 mars 2017, par la Cour suprême (voir, Allen c. Royaume-Uni [GC], no 25424/09, § 94, CEDH 2013) ?
Its in French and communicated to Portugal on 01/14/2021.
FOURTH SECTION
Application No. 57195/17
Gerald Patrick MCCANN and Kate Marie HEALY
against Portugal
lodged on July 28, 2017
SUBJECT OF THE CASE
The application concerns allegations made by GA, a former inspector of the judicial police, in a book and a broadcast documentary on the television channel T., then put on sale in the form of a DVD, concerning the applicants' involvement in the disappearance of their daughter, which occurred on 3 May 2007 in the south of Portugal. It also concerns the civil liability action brought by the applicants against GA, its publisher and the T. television channel, after which they were dismissed.
Relying on Articles 6 §§ 1 and 2, 8 and 10 § 2 of the Convention, the applicants assert that the allegations made by GA in the book and the documentary in question infringed their right to respect for their private life and their right to the presumption of innocence. They complain that the domestic courts failed to weigh up the interests at stake in accordance with the criteria set out in the Court's case-law.
Furthermore, still under the angle of Articles 6 §§ 1 and 2, 8 and 10 § 2 of the Convention, they argue that the reasoning contained in the decisions delivered on 31 January and 21 March 2017 by the Supreme Court in the outcome of the civil liability action also violated their right to the presumption of innocence.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
1. Was there an infringement of the applicants' right to respect for their private life, within the meaning of Article 8 § 1 of the Convention (see, Axel Springer AG v. Germany [GC], no. 39954/08 , § 83, 7 February 2012; and Larrañaga Arando and Others v. Spain (dec.), Nos. 73911/16, 233/17 3086/17 and 5155/17, § 42, 25 June 2019) with regard in particular to the allegations made by GA in the disputed book and documentary?
In particular, did the respondent State comply with its positive obligations aimed at guaranteeing the applicants the right to respect for their “private life”, within the meaning of Article 8 of the Convention?
In addition, in their decisions, did the domestic courts carry out an adequate balance, in accordance with the criteria established by the Court's case-law, between the applicants' right to respect for their private life and the right of the parties? opponents of freedom of expression (see, Von Hannover (no 2) [GC], nos 40660/08 and 60641/08, §§ 108-113, ECHR 2012, Axel Springer AG, cited above, §§ 89-95, and Bédat v. Switzerland [GC], no.56925 / 08, §§ 52-54, ECHR 2016)?
2. Has the presumption of innocence guaranteed by Article 6 § 2 of the Convention been respected in the present case having regard to the reasoning contained in the decisions handed down on 31 January and 21 March 2017 by the Supreme Court (see, Allen v. The United Kingdom [GC], no 25424/09, § 94, ECHR 2013)?
" Last Edit: Today at 06:51:32 PM by barrier "
-
The way I read it is that the echr are asking Portugal to quantify their decision.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
1. Was there an infringement of the applicants' right to respect for their private life, within the meaning of Article 8 § 1 of the Convention (see, Axel Springer AG v. Germany [GC], no. 39954/08 , § 83, 7 February 2012; and Larrañaga Arando and Others v. Spain (dec.), Nos. 73911/16, 233/17 3086/17 and 5155/17, § 42, 25 June 2019) with regard in particular to the allegations made by GA in the disputed book and documentary?
In particular, did the respondent State comply with its positive obligations aimed at guaranteeing the applicants the right to respect for their “private life”, within the meaning of Article 8 of the Convention?
In addition, in their decisions, did the domestic courts carry out an adequate balance, in accordance with the criteria established by the Court's case-law, between the applicants' right to respect for their private life and the right of the parties? opponents of freedom of expression (see, Von Hannover (no 2) [GC], nos 40660/08 and 60641/08, §§ 108-113, ECHR 2012, Axel Springer AG, cited above, §§ 89-95, and Bédat v. Switzerland [GC], no.56925 / 08, §§ 52-54, ECHR 2016)?
2. Has the presumption of innocence guaranteed by Article 6 § 2 of the Convention been respected in the present case having regard to the reasoning contained in the decisions handed down on 31 January and 21 March 2017 by the Supreme Court (see, Allen v. The United Kingdom [GC], no 25424/09, § 94, ECHR 2013)?
-
Is this the first time That Portugal has been told the nature of the complaint?
-
Its in French and communicated to Portugal on 01/14/2021.
FOURTH SECTION
Application No. 57195/17
Gerald Patrick MCCANN and Kate Marie HEALY
against Portugal
lodged on July 28, 2017
SUBJECT OF THE CASE
The application concerns allegations made by GA, a former inspector of the judicial police, in a book and a broadcast documentary on the television channel T., then put on sale in the form of a DVD, concerning the applicants' involvement in the disappearance of their daughter, which occurred on 3 May 2007 in the south of Portugal. It also concerns the civil liability action brought by the applicants against GA, its publisher and the T. television channel, after which they were dismissed.
Relying on Articles 6 §§ 1 and 2, 8 and 10 § 2 of the Convention, the applicants assert that the allegations made by GA in the book and the documentary in question infringed their right to respect for their private life and their right to the presumption of innocence. They complain that the domestic courts failed to weigh up the interests at stake in accordance with the criteria set out in the Court's case-law.
Furthermore, still under the angle of Articles 6 §§ 1 and 2, 8 and 10 § 2 of the Convention, they argue that the reasoning contained in the decisions delivered on 31 January and 21 March 2017 by the Supreme Court in the outcome of the civil liability action also violated their right to the presumption of innocence.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
1. Was there an infringement of the applicants' right to respect for their private life, within the meaning of Article 8 § 1 of the Convention (see, Axel Springer AG v. Germany [GC], no. 39954/08 , § 83, 7 February 2012; and Larrañaga Arando and Others v. Spain (dec.), Nos. 73911/16, 233/17 3086/17 and 5155/17, § 42, 25 June 2019) with regard in particular to the allegations made by GA in the disputed book and documentary?
In particular, did the respondent State comply with its positive obligations aimed at guaranteeing the applicants the right to respect for their “private life”, within the meaning of Article 8 of the Convention?
In addition, in their decisions, did the domestic courts carry out an adequate balance, in accordance with the criteria established by the Court's case-law, between the applicants' right to respect for their private life and the right of the parties? opponents of freedom of expression (see, Von Hannover (no 2) [GC], nos 40660/08 and 60641/08, §§ 108-113, ECHR 2012, Axel Springer AG, cited above, §§ 89-95, and Bédat v. Switzerland [GC], no.56925 / 08, §§ 52-54, ECHR 2016)?
2. Has the presumption of innocence guaranteed by Article 6 § 2 of the Convention been respected in the present case having regard to the reasoning contained in the decisions handed down on 31 January and 21 March 2017 by the Supreme Court (see, Allen v. The United Kingdom [GC], no 25424/09, § 94, ECHR 2013)?
" Last Edit: Today at 06:51:32 PM by barrier "
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
1. Has the applicants' right to privacy been infringed, within the meaning of Article 8-1 of the Convention (see, Axel Springer AG v. Germany [GC], No. 39954/08, 83, February 7, 2012; and Larraaga Arando et al v. Spain (Dec.), nos. 73911/16, 233/17 3086/17 and 5155/17, 42, June 25, 2019) in particular in relation to the allegations made by G.A. in the book and documentary in dispute?
In particular, has the respondent state complied with its positive obligations to guarantee applicants the right to respect for their "privacy" within the meaning of Article 8 of the Convention?
In addition, have the internal courts, in their decisions, properly balanced, in accordance with the criteria established by the Court's jurisprudence, between the right of applicants to respect for their privacy and the right of opposing parties to freedom of expression (see Von Hannover (No. 2) [GC], nos 40660/08 and 60641/08, '108-113, CEDH 2012, Axel Springer AG, above, '89-95, and Bédat v. Switzerland [GC], no 56925/08, '52-54, ECHR 2016)?
2. Was the presumption of innocence guaranteed by Article 6-2 of the Convention respected in this case in light of the motivation contained in the Supreme Court's decisions of 31 January and 21 March 2017 (see, Allen v. United Kingdom [GC], 25424/09, 94, CEDH 2013)?
-
Is this the first time That Portugal has been told the nature of the complaint?
Seems like it. are they asking Portugal how it arrived at its decision in the appeal stage and supreme court whilst taking in to consideration, articles 6 and 8.
-
Even now its not decided if its admissible.
https://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/Applicants_communication_non_contentious_ENG.pdf
Worth highlighting for clarity.
DATA PROTECTION / PUBLIC ACCESS TO CASE
Please note that all case file documents are public, except for those related to the friendlysettlement procedure. Moreover, some documents, like decisions, judgments or statements of facts,
are published on the Court’s Internet site.
It follows that anyone may obtain access to information in the case file, which contains the
application form and all the documents added later by the parties and third parties, if any. If these
documents mention names or personal data, please bear in mind that they might thus be disclosed,
translated and disseminated. The file content might also make it possible to identify people who are
not directly named.
If you have any objections to this material being accessible and wish to request derogation, you need
to inform the Court as soon as possible. You should give valid reasons to justify such an exception.
The President will then consider your request and decide whether access to the case file should be
limited – in part or in whole1
.
-
So it looks exactly as I said it would. The balance between articles 8 and 10 and the presumption of innocence.. Article 6.
Last week gunit was arguing they couldn't question article 8 as she said it hadn't been raised in the first instance. I disagreed. Looks like my predicted understanding of the case was spot on
Article 8 also refers to the right to a good name.. Defamation
-
This is the complaint made by the McCanns
duced on July 28, 2017
SUBJECT OF THE CASE The application concerns allegations made by GA, a former inspector of the judicial police, in a book and a documentary broadcast on the television channel T., then put on sale in the form of a DVD, about the involvement of the applicants in the disappearance of their daughter, which occurred on 3 May 2007 in southern Portugal. It also concerns the civil liability action brought by the applicants against G.A., its publisher and the T. television channel, after which they were dismissed.
Relying on Articles 6 §§ 1 and 2, 8 and 10 § 2 of the Convention, the applicants assert that the allegations made by GA in the book and the documentary in question infringed their right to respect for their private life and their right to the presumption of innocence. They complain that the domestic courts have failed to balance the interests at stake in accordance with the criteria set out in the Court's case-law.
Furthermore, still under the angle of Articles 6 §§ 1 and 2, 8 and 10 § 2 of the Convention, they argue that the reasoning contained in the decisions delivered on 31 January and 21 March 2017 by the Supreme Court in the outcome of the civil liability action also violated their right to the presumption of innocence.
-
Case details.
Document Type
Communicated Case
Title
MCCANN ET HEALY c. PORTUGAL
App. No(s).
57195/17
Importance Level
3
Respondent State(s)
Portugal
Conclusion(s)
Affaire communiquée
Affaire communiquée
Article(s)
6
6-2
8
8-1
Keywords
(Art. 6) Right to a fair trial
(Art. 8) Right to respect for private and family life
Date
14/01/2021
Importance level 3.
3 = Low importance: Judgments, decisions and advisory opinions of little legal interest, namely judgments and decisions that simply apply existing case-law, friendly settlements and strike outs (unless raising a particular point of interest). The importance levels are mentioned in the notice accompanying each document.
-
Does low level suggest that it won't go any further, or it's low priority in coming before the court ?
-
Importance level 3.
3 = Low importance: Judgments, decisions and advisory opinions of little legal interest, namely judgments and decisions that simply apply existing case-law, friendly settlements and strike outs (unless raising a particular point of interest). The importance levels are mentioned in the notice accompanying each document.
https://www.echr.coe.int/Pages/home.aspx?p=caselaw/HUDOC/
Level 3 Of little legal interest because they simply apply existing case law
-
Does low level suggest that it won't go any further, or it's low priority in coming before the court ?
Neither
-
Does low level suggest that it won't go any further, or it's low priority in coming before the court ?
Its of little legal interest it seems, what ever that means and to whom ?
-
Neither
Then what do you think low importance means?
-
It explains what it means.. Of little legal interest... Existing case law applies.
-
I think it looks very good for the McCanns... We will see
-
I think it looks very good for the McCanns... We will see
To What end ?
-
To What end ?
If it goes well I believe the McCanns hope they won't have to pay all the costs that they would be liable for.
-
If it goes well I believe the McCanns hope they won't have to pay all the costs that they would be liable for.
The costs which they were ordered to pay by the Portuguese courts will not be affected by anything the ECHR decides. They sued Amaral et al and they lost, so they have to pay the costs of those they sued.
-
The costs which they were ordered to pay by the Portuguese courts will not be affected by anything the ECHR decides. They sued Amaral et al and they lost, so they have to pay the costs of those they sued.
Do they? May we have a Cite for that.
-
The costs which they were ordered to pay by the Portuguese courts will not be affected by anything the ECHR decides. They sued Amaral et al and they lost, so they have to pay the costs of those they sued.
Maybe, but could they counterclaim any action to take the money off them if they win their case in the ECHR? It's a new one on me, but if the ECHR said the ruling of the SC was wrong, I wouldn't pay either. Maybe they won't get the money that Amaral should pay them but it will better than paying him.
-
The costs which they were ordered to pay by the Portuguese courts will not be affected by anything the ECHR decides. They sued Amaral et al and they lost, so they have to pay the costs of those they sued.
And what if (emboldened by an ECHR ruling in their favour) they refuse?
-
Maybe, but could they counterclaim any action to take the money off them if they win their case in the ECHR? It's a new one on me, but if the ECHR said the ruling of the SC was wrong, I wouldn't pay either. Maybe they won't get the money that Amaral should pay them but it will better than paying him.
Who would they counterclaim against ?
They'd be lucky not to be held in contempt of court if they refuse to pay costs awarded by the Portuguese court.
IMO
-
Davel? He's the only one who seems to know anything about this.
-
Who would they counterclaim against ?
They'd be lucky not to be held in contempt of court if they refuse to pay costs awarded by the Portuguese court.
IMO
Why haven't they been paid already?
-
Who would they counterclaim against ?
They'd be lucky not to be held in contempt of court if they refuse to pay costs awarded by the Portuguese court.
IMO
It is already years old?
-
It is already years old?
What is ?
-
Do they? May we have a Cite for that.
The Court does not act as a court of appeal in relation to national
courts; it does not rehear cases, it cannot quash, vary or revise
their decisions.
Page 8 https://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/Questions_Answers_ENG.pdf
-
So it looks exactly as I said it would. The balance between articles 8 and 10 and the presumption of innocence.. Article 6.
Last week gunit was arguing they couldn't question article 8 as she said it hadn't been raised in the first instance. I disagreed. Looks like my predicted understanding of the case was spot on
Article 8 also refers to the right to a good name.. Defamation
So had you already seen this D after all its been around since. 14/01/2021.
Or was it just coincidence you quoted this paragraph in earlier posts.?
Relying on Articles 6 §§ 1 and 2, 8 and 10 § 2 of the Convention, the applicants assert that the allegations made by GA in the book and the documentary in question infringed their right to respect for their private life and their right to the presumption of innocence. They complain that the domestic courts failed to weigh up the interests at stake in accordance with the criteria set out in the Court's case-law.
I do think IMO if there was anything significant to say it was going the mccs way the media would have been all over it .
-
The Court does not act as a court of appeal in relation to national
courts; it does not rehear cases, it cannot quash, vary or revise
their decisions.
Page 8 https://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/Questions_Answers_ENG.pdf
So why has nothing been done about The Costs before now?
-
So why has nothing been done about The Costs before now?
Apart from a report in the Tabloids, is there anything to support the notion that the McCanns haven't paid what is required of them?
Has their 'family pal' pronounced on the subject ?
-
Apart from a report in the Tabloids, is there anything to support the notion that the McCanns haven't paid what is required of them?
Has their 'family pal' pronounced on the subject ?
I presume No Cite is available for this opinion.
-
I presume No Cite is available for this opinion.
Since when does a question require a cite ?
-
Since when does a question require a cite ?
So you don't know if The McCanns have already paid.
-
So you don't know if The McCanns have already paid.
I wouldn't have asked the question if I did.
-
I wouldn't have asked the question if I did.
Do you know if they will have to pay if they win at The ECHR?
-
Do you know if they will have to pay if they win at The ECHR?
No idea what actually happens if they win.
-
No idea what actually happens if they win.
So nothing to contribute then.
-
I don't think Kate, Gerry and the family will be looking at this as more than a box ticking exercise that had to be done to restore the good name which was taken from them by Amaral and Portugal and to establish once and for all their right to the presumption of innocence.
Time has moved on and at long last it looks as though there will be some resolution for good or ill as to what happened to Madeleine. And with the passage of time the enormity of the great wrong perpetrated against this family has become more and more evident to those with eyes to see..
-
So nothing to contribute then.
Not at the moment. I'll wait until the result is out, rather than trying to second guess the court decision. 8)--))
-
I don't think Kate, Gerry and the family will be looking at this as more than a box ticking exercise that had to be done to restore the good name which was taken from them by Amaral and Portugal and to establish once and for all their right to the presumption of innocence.
Time has moved on and at long last it looks as though there will be some resolution for good or ill as to what happened to Madeleine. And with the passage of time the enormity of the great wrong perpetrated against this family has become more and more evident to those with eyes to see..
I don't think Kate, Gerry and the family will be looking at this as more than a box ticking exercise that had to be done to restore the good name
IMO most of what they have done seems to be a box-ticking exercise to clear their good name IMO
-
I don't think Kate, Gerry and the family will be looking at this as more than a box ticking exercise that had to be done to restore the good name
IMO most of what they have done seems to be a box-ticking exercise to clear their good name IMO
Madeleine is yet another member of the McCann family who had her right to be looked for abrogated by the Portuguese when the investigation into her disappearance was side tracked then shelved.
Only Madeleine's parents kept the search for her alive and it looks as if that may at long last be on the road to fruition thanks to German diligence.
If their appeal to the European Court is successful I think it should be followed by a lot of soul searching by those who have adopted a negative approach to the search for Madeleine. Epitomised by sometimes actively working to place obstacles in the way of her parents' endeavours on her behalf.
-
Madeleine is yet another member of the McCann family who had her right to be looked for abrogated by the Portuguese when the investigation into her disappearance was side tracked then shelved.
Only Madeleine's parents kept the search for her alive and it looks as if that may at long last be on the road to fruition thanks to German diligence.
If their appeal to the European Court is successful I think it should be followed by a lot of soul searching by those who have adopted a negative approach to the search for Madeleine. Epitomised by sometimes actively working to place obstacles in the way of her parents' endeavours on her behalf.
obstacles in the way of her parents' endeavours on her behalf.
Unfortunately, the ECHR are unable to help Maddie with her rights
It seems the mccs took away the obstacle of protecting Maddie and her right to have been protected so no harm would come her way.
The mccs prefered there right to share adult company than safeguarding their children right to protection it seems.
Leaving three vulnerable children to the elements
-
obstacles in the way of her parents' endeavours on her behalf.
Unfortunately, the ECHR are unable to help Maddie with her rights
It seems the mccs took away the obstacle of protecting Maddie and her right to have been protected so no harm would come her way.
The mccs prefered there right to share adult company than safeguarding their children right to protection it seems.
Leaving three vulnerable children to the elements
Yes, we know all about that. Have known since it happened on the 3rd May 2007.
But who is responsible now and since then for the neglect of Madeleine and her right to be looked for. Madeleine's parents have devoted their lives to finding out what happened to her.
There are many people who have done all they possibly can over a period of fourteen years ~ indeed have forged a career from attempting to thwart their every move in their search for Madeleine.
In my book that prolonged negativity may be even more reprehensible and damaging.
We have seen the reluctance to face facts as epitomised by the refusal of some to accept initially that the McCanns had grounds to take their case to the ECHR then the hope that they would not be heard ... and here we are.
It really looks as if the lawmakers are going to exercise the right to scrutinise the laws they made and to which others have agreed.
I have every expectation it will go as well as I hope it will.
-
Yes, we know all about that. Have known since it happened on the 3rd May 2007.
But who is responsible now and since then for the neglect of Madeleine and her right to be looked for. Madeleine's parents have devoted their lives to finding out what happened to her.
There are many people who have done all they possibly can over a period of fourteen years ~ indeed have forged a career from attempting to thwart their every move in their search for Madeleine.
In my book that prolonged negativity may be even more reprehensible and damaging.
We have seen the reluctance to face facts as epitomised by the refusal of some to accept initially that the McCanns had grounds to take their case to the ECHR then the hope that they would not be heard ... and here we are.
It really looks as if the lawmakers are going to exercise the right to scrutinise the laws they made and to which others have agreed.
I have every expectation it will go as well as I hope it will.
The ECHR claim is at the same point now as it was four years ago.
-
I think it looks very good for the McCanns... We will see
I have only looked at the cases quoted by the ECHR in relation to their first question to the parties;
1. Was there an infringement of the applicants' right to respect for their private life, within the meaning of Article 8 § 1 of the Convention (see, Axel Springer AG v. Germany [GC], no. 39954/08 , § 83, 7 February 2012; and Larrañaga Arando and Others v. Spain (dec.), Nos. 73911/16, 233/17 3086/17 and 5155/17, § 42, 25 June 2019) with regard in particular to the allegations made by GA in the disputed book and documentary?
The applicants claimed breach of respect for private life (Alex Springer) and of the presumption of innocence (Larrañaga Arando). Neither of their claims were upheld by the ECHR. It seems to me that it will be necessary for the claimants to demonstrate how their claims differ from those quoted.
-
I have only looked at the cases quoted by the ECHR in relation to their first question to the parties;
1. Was there an infringement of the applicants' right to respect for their private life, within the meaning of Article 8 § 1 of the Convention (see, Axel Springer AG v. Germany [GC], no. 39954/08 , § 83, 7 February 2012; and Larrañaga Arando and Others v. Spain (dec.), Nos. 73911/16, 233/17 3086/17 and 5155/17, § 42, 25 June 2019) with regard in particular to the allegations made by GA in the disputed book and documentary?
The applicants claimed breach of respect for private life (Alex Springer) and of the presumption of innocence (Larrañaga Arando). Neither of their claims were upheld by the ECHR. It seems to me that it will be necessary for the claimants to demonstrate how their claims differ from those quoted.
So do you now accept the McCanns can make an application under article 8
-
I have only looked at the cases quoted by the ECHR in relation to their first question to the parties;
1. Was there an infringement of the applicants' right to respect for their private life, within the meaning of Article 8 § 1 of the Convention (see, Axel Springer AG v. Germany [GC], no. 39954/08 , § 83, 7 February 2012; and Larrañaga Arando and Others v. Spain (dec.), Nos. 73911/16, 233/17 3086/17 and 5155/17, § 42, 25 June 2019) with regard in particular to the allegations made by GA in the disputed book and documentary?
The applicants claimed breach of respect for private life (Alex Springer) and of the presumption of innocence (Larrañaga Arando). Neither of their claims were upheld by the ECHR. It seems to me that it will be necessary for the claimants to demonstrate how their claims differ from those quoted.
In the Axel Springer case everything printed was true. The actor had been arrested for possession of cocaine
-
Madeleine is yet another member of the McCann family who had her right to be looked for abrogated by the Portuguese when the investigation into her disappearance was side tracked then shelved.
Only Madeleine's parents kept the search for her alive and it looks as if that may at long last be on the road to fruition thanks to German diligence.
If their appeal to the European Court is successful I think it should be followed by a lot of soul searching by those who have adopted a negative approach to the search for Madeleine. Epitomised by sometimes actively working to place obstacles in the way of her parents' endeavours on her behalf.
Madeleine had the right to have her disappearance investigated in my opinion and the PJ did that to the best of their abilities. I don't know if a child has the "right to be looked for", do you have a cite for that please?
-
Madeleine had the right to have her disappearance investigated in my opinion and the PJ did that to the best of their abilities. I don't know if a child has the "right to be looked for", do you have a cite for that please?
What? You don't know if a child has the right to be looked for? I am truly shocked.
Does Madeleine have the right to be a British Citizen with her own Passport?
-
Madeleine had the right to have her disappearance investigated in my opinion and the PJ did that to the best of their abilities. I don't know if a child has the "right to be looked for", do you have a cite for that please?
What do you see as the key differences between Madeleine's right to have her disappearance investigated (something which you do accept) and her right to be looked for (something which you don't accept)?
-
In the Axel Springer case everything printed was true. The actor had been arrested for possession of cocaine
So you think the German courts got it wrong, and Bild's freedom of expression did indeed outweigh the actor's rights?
-
What? You don't know if a child has the right to be looked for? I am truly shocked.
Does Madeleine have the right to be a British Citizen with her own Passport?
I asked for a cite demonstrating the existence of a child's right to be looked for.
Madeleine's right to a recorded identity seems to be covered by Article 7 of the UN convention
on the rights of the child
https://www.unicef.org.uk/child-rights-partners/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2016/08/CRC_summary_leaflet_Child_Rights_Partners_web_final.pdf
-
So you think the German courts got it wrong, and Bild's freedom of expression did indeed outweigh the actor's rights?
Absolutely... I'll post why later
-
I asked for a cite demonstrating the existence of a child's right to be looked for.
Madeleine's right to a recorded identity seems to be covered by Article 7 of the UN convention
on the rights of the child
https://www.unicef.org.uk/child-rights-partners/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2016/08/CRC_summary_leaflet_Child_Rights_Partners_web_final.pdf
If you don't know why a missing child does not have the right to be looked for I am sadly powerless to help you.
-
What do you see as the key differences between Madeleine's right to have her disappearance investigated (something which you do accept) and her right to be looked for (something which you don't accept)?
Asking G-Unit again to clarify.
-
If you don't know why a missing child does not have the right to be looked for I am sadly powerless to help you.
I asked you to support your claim that Madeleine McCann had a right to be looked for, which, imo, you posted as if it were a fact.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=8465.msg641538#msg641538
I can find no such statutary right and as no cite is being provided I assume none exists. In my opinion this 'right' seems to have been invented and perpetuated by her parents and others. I conclude, therefore that it's an opinion, not a fact.
-
I asked you to support your claim that Madeleine McCann had a right to be looked for, which, imo, you posted as if it were a fact.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=8465.msg641538#msg641538
I can find no such statutary right and as no cite is being provided I assume none exists. In my opinion this 'right' seems to have been invented and perpetuated by her parents and others. I conclude, therefore that it's an opinion, not a fact.
Can you please support your claim that Madeleine had the right to have her disappearance investigated with a cite?
-
I asked you to support your claim that Madeleine McCann had a right to be looked for, which, imo, you posted as if it were a fact.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=8465.msg641538#msg641538
I can find no such statutary right and as no cite is being provided I assume none exists. In my opinion this 'right' seems to have been invented and perpetuated by her parents and others. I conclude, therefore that it's an opinion, not a fact.
Who needs a Statutory Right to look for a Missing Child?
-
I asked you to support your claim that Madeleine McCann had a right to be looked for, which, imo, you posted as if it were a fact.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=8465.msg641538#msg641538
I can find no such statutary right and as no cite is being provided I assume none exists. In my opinion this 'right' seems to have been invented and perpetuated by her parents and others. I conclude, therefore that it's an opinion, not a fact.
How about these rights - do they cover the right of a missing child to be looked for?
Article 6 (life, survival and development)
Every child has the right to life.
Governments must do all they can to
ensure that children survive and develop to
their full potential.
Article 9 (separation from parents)
Children must not be separated from their
parents against their will unless it is in their
best interests (for example, if a parent is
hurting or neglecting a child). Children
whose parents have separated have the
right to stay in contact with both parents,
unless this could cause them harm
Article 11 (abduction and non-return
of children)
Governments must do everything they can
to stop children being taken out of their
own country illegally by their parents or
other relatives, or being prevented from
returning home.
Article 19 (protection from violence,
abuse and neglect)
Governments must do all they can to
ensure that children are protected from all
forms of violence, abuse, neglect and bad
treatment by their parents or anyone else
who looks after them.
Article 27 (adequate standard of living)
Every child has the right to a standard of
living that is good enough to meet their
physical and social needs and support
their development. Governments must
help families who cannot afford to
provide this.
Article 28 (right to education)
Every child has the right to an education.
Primary education must be free and
different forms of secondary education
must be available to every child. Discipline
in schools must respect children’s dignity
and their rights. Richer countries must help
poorer countries achieve this.
Article 31 (leisure, play and culture)
Every child has the right to relax, play and
take part in a wide range of cultural and
artistic activities.
Article 34 (sexual exploitation)
Governments must protect children from
all forms of sexual abuse and exploitation.
And most especially
Article 35 (abduction, sale
and trafficking)
Governments must protect children from
being abducted, sold or moved illegally
to a different place in or outside their
country for the purpose of exploitation.
-
What? You don't know if a child has the right to be looked for? I am truly shocked.
Does Madeleine have the right to be a British Citizen with her own Passport?
I wonder how many acres of Saddleworth Moor could be dug up looking for K Bennett's body with the expenditure of OG, they are no more or less deserving imo.
-
What? You don't know if a child has the right to be looked for? I am truly shocked.
Does Madeleine have the right to be a British Citizen with her own Passport?
She did have. It will have expired by now and cannot be renewed without an appropriate photograph
-
I asked you to support your claim that Madeleine McCann had a right to be looked for, which, imo, you posted as if it were a fact.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=8465.msg641538#msg641538
I can find no such statutary right and as no cite is being provided I assume none exists. In my opinion this 'right' seems to have been invented and perpetuated by her parents and others. I conclude, therefore that it's an opinion, not a fact.
Was it you who recently quoted JOSE MANUEL OLIVEIRA, Crime reporter, 'Diario de Noticias', "A badly told story" who told of the very early days of Madeleine's disappearance as follows ~
"Information started circulating - from sources connected to the Portuguese police- that the story was full of holes from the side of the McCanns and their friends.
Indeed within two days of Madeleine disappearing, this crime correspondent was filing this piece in the Portuguese Daily: Diario of the Noticias: "Headline: a badly told story."
We started to receive information according to which the police suspected the theory they had apprehensions, didn't believe the theory that she had been kidnapped.
To conclude, the police started to suspect the parents from the word go.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/panorama/7106086.stm
So as early as that there is evidence that the Portuguese police had discarded the search for Madeleine to concentrate all their efforts on her parents and their friends, which is supported in the PJ files.
We have now been made aware that during this time the present suspect in Madeleine's disappearance passed the scrutiny of the Policia Judiciaria; could that have been the same attitude of neglecting the right of a missing child to be looked for almost from the day and hour of her disappearance.
-
I wonder how many acres of Saddleworth Moor could be dug up looking for K Bennett's body with the expenditure of OG, they are no more or less deserving imo.
There is a slight difference, I wonder if you can spot it.
-
There is a slight difference, I wonder if you can spot it.
Madeleine is dead like K Bennett, first Amaral told you so, now Wolters, are they both wrong.
-
Madeleine is dead like K Bennett, first Amaral told you so, now Wolters, are they both wrong.
They've both said Madeleine is dead but Amaral said the parents were complicit.. Wolters.. As I understand has evidence to support his claim... Amaral didnt
-
Madeleine is dead like K Bennett, first Amaral told you so, now Wolters, are they both wrong.
How is that a difference?
-
They've both said Madeleine is dead but Amaral said the parents were complicit.. Wolters.. As I understand has evidence to support his claim... Amaral didnt
Bias confirmation.
-
They've both said Madeleine is dead but Amaral said the parents were complicit.. Wolters.. As I understand has evidence to support his claim... Amaral didnt
Amaral said they covered the death up, not complicit in it. So which is right, both have said she is dead, difference is Wolters says has a prosecutor, Amaral had the temerity to write (release) a book once a private citizen.
-
Amaral said they covered the death up, not complicit in it. So which is right, both have said she is dead, difference is Wolters says has a prosecutor, Amaral had the temerity to write (release) a book once a private citizen.
Amaral was reviled by the parents and their supporters long before he ever put pen to paper and it’s disingenuous to suggest otherwise. I think very early on they realised that he was going to be a thorn in their side and had to be discredited.
-
Amaral said they covered the death up, not complicit in it. So which is right, both have said she is dead, difference is Wolters says has a prosecutor, Amaral had the temerity to write (release) a book once a private citizen.
Amaral's book justifying his part in the botched investigation into Madeleine McCann's disappearance has led to the
European Court of Human Rights.
It will be interesting to see the results of that.
-
Amaral's book justifying his part in the botched investigation into Madeleine McCann's disappearance has led to the
European Court of Human Rights.
It will be interesting to see the results of that.
So you see it as McCann/Healey v PJ.
-
Amaral said they covered the death up, not complicit in it. So which is right, both have said she is dead, difference is Wolters says has a prosecutor, Amaral had the temerity to write (release) a book once a private citizen.
Amaral said they covered the death up and launched a fraudulent fund. He accused them of being criminals. Then its about when it was said..2007 vs 2020
-
So you see it as McCann/Healey v PJ.
It's McCanns vs Portugal.. Portugal allowed Amaral to libel the McCanns and denied them the POI... It really is that simple
-
So you see it as McCann/Healey v PJ.
Please don't be silly about this it is unbecoming.
-
Amaral said they covered the death up and launched a fraudulent fund. He accused them of being criminals. Then its about when it was said..2007 vs 2020
I seem to remember Amaral saying that Britain would have to prosecute The McCanns for running a Fraudulent Fund.
-
Amaral was reviled by the parents and their supporters long before he ever put pen to paper and it’s disingenuous to suggest otherwise. I think very early on they realised that he was going to be a thorn in their side and had to be discredited.
Do you really not understand everything Amaral and the first investigation believes is based on their complete ignorance of what the evidence pointed to... There's no other words to describe it. I actually think Amaral is still completely misguided
-
I seem to remember Amaral saying that Britain would have to prosecute The McCanns for running a Fraudulent Fund.
Any such prosecution would certainly be outside the jurisdiction of the Portuguese Court.
-
Any such prosecution would certainly be outside the jurisdiction of the Portuguese Court.
According to amaral the McCanns are being protected by M15.. LOL
-
Amaral's book justifying his part in the botched investigation into Madeleine McCann's disappearance has led to the
European Court of Human Rights.
It will be interesting to see the results of that.
The McCanns' conviction that Amaral's book was illegal has led them to the ECHR. It's their last chance saloon in their 12 year fight to find a court to agree with them.
-
The McCanns' conviction that Amaral's book was illegal has led them to the ECHR. It's their last chance saloon in their 12 year fight to find a court to agree with them.
you’re forgetting that they did find a court that agreed with them, some stupid empathetic female judge in Portugal who got overruled, remember?
-
The McCanns' conviction that Amaral's book was illegal has led them to the ECHR. It's their last chance saloon in their 12 year fight to find a court to agree with them.
It's their first chance to get a ruling unaffected by Portuguese bias
-
In the Axel Springer case everything printed was true. The actor had been arrested for possession of cocaine
It was acknowledged by the Portuguese courts that "It is proved that the facts in the book and in the documentary, concerning the investigation, are mostly facts that took place in the investigation and are documented as such."
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=5931.msg213872#msg213872
-
It was acknowledged by the Portuguese courts that "It is proved that the facts in the book and in the documentary, concerning the investigation, are mostly facts that took place in the investigation and are documented as such."
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=5931.msg213872#msg213872
The most important word is mostly. It's the things Amaral added on that did most damage... Plus he did not give a balanced view of the investigation. Why do you think he failed to mention the alerts had no evidential value... Instead of claiming they confirmed Maddie died in the apartment..
-
The McCanns' conviction that Amaral's book was illegal has led them to the ECHR. It's their last chance saloon in their 12 year fight to find a court to agree with them.
It’s certainly turned out to be a Lady Chatterly’s Lover for the 21st century.
-
The McCanns' conviction that Amaral's book was illegal has led them to the ECHR. It's their last chance saloon in their 12 year fight to find a court to agree with them.
It remains to be seen whether or not the Portuguese appeal court judges have interpreted European Law correctly or not.
I don't think they have.
-
It remains to be seen whether or not the Portuguese appeal court judges have interpreted European Law correctly or not.
I don't think they have.
It's what the court thinks that is important .
-
It’s certainly turned out to be a Lady Chatterly’s Lover for the 21st century.
Yes, that famous work of libel against a lowly game keeper and his hoity toity bit of skirt.
-
you’re forgetting that they did find a court that agreed with them, some stupid empathetic female judge in Portugal who got overruled, remember?
I think she was actually a pretty tough cookie who heard the case without fear or favour and who reached the right decision.
-
Not according to two higher Courts.
-
I think she was actually a pretty tough cookie who heard the case without fear or favour and who reached the right decision.
Yes no doubt, I was empathaising with the sceptical position ;-)
-
Not according to two higher Courts.
The judgement of which will hopefully be subject to the scrutiny of an even higher court.
-
Not according to two higher Courts.
Is it two?
-
The judgement of which will hopefully be subject to the scrutiny of an even higher court.
Indeed it will, even if it's discarded along the way.
-
you’re forgetting that they did find a court that agreed with them, some stupid empathetic female judge in Portugal who got overruled, remember?
Only by ruling (mistakenly) that Amaral's freedom of expression was reduced due to his previous employment.
Even the first judge dismissed a lot of their claims;
VI. Over the remaining part, dismiss the requests made in the action attached by the claimants KATE MARIE HEALY MACCANN and GERALD PATRICK MACCANN against the defendants GONÇALO AMARAL, GUERRA&PAZ, EDITORES, SA and VC–VALENTIM DE CARVALHO-FILMES, AUDIOVISUAIS, SA and of the same claims acquit the defendants.
VII. Fully dismiss the claims made in the attached action against the defendant TVI-INDEPENDENT TELEVISION, SA, and of those claims acquit the defendant.
VIII. Fully dismiss the requests made in the attached action by the claimants MADELEINE MCCANN, SEAN MICHAEL MCCANN and AMELIE EVE MCCANN.
Neither did she order Amaral or his codefendants to pay the McCann's costs.
-
Only by ruling (mistakenly) that Amaral's freedom of expression was reduced due to his previous employment.
Even the first judge dismissed a lot of their claims;
VI. Over the remaining part, dismiss the requests made in the action attached by the claimants KATE MARIE HEALY MACCANN and GERALD PATRICK MACCANN against the defendants GONÇALO AMARAL, GUERRA&PAZ, EDITORES, SA and VC–VALENTIM DE CARVALHO-FILMES, AUDIOVISUAIS, SA and of the same claims acquit the defendants.
VII. Fully dismiss the claims made in the attached action against the defendant TVI-INDEPENDENT TELEVISION, SA, and of those claims acquit the defendant.
VIII. Fully dismiss the requests made in the attached action by the claimants MADELEINE MCCANN, SEAN MICHAEL MCCANN and AMELIE EVE MCCANN.
Neither did she order Amaral or his codefendants to pay the McCann's costs.
There you go, she was stupid, she made mistakes, she didn’t even really find in favour of the McCanns, blah blah blah.
-
The most important word is mostly. It's the things Amaral added on that did most damage... Plus he did not give a balanced view of the investigation. Why do you think he failed to mention the alerts had no evidential value... Instead of claiming they confirmed Maddie died in the apartment..
Whether you agree or not, the judge informed the lawyers on 21st January 2015 of the facts which she considered proven and not proven. As the McCann's lawyers raised no objections, it's too late now to argue about them imo.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=5931.0
-
How much longer until we get the definitive conclusion?
-
How much longer until we get the definitive conclusion?
Clear as mud I think holly.
-
1. Was there an infringement of the applicants' right to respect for their private life, within the meaning of Article 8 § 1 of the Convention (see, Axel Springer AG v. Germany [GC], no. 39954/08 , § 83, 7 February 2012; and Larrañaga Arando and Others v. Spain (dec.), Nos. 73911/16, 233/17 3086/17 and 5155/17, § 42, 25 June 2019) with regard in particular to the allegations made by GA in the disputed book and documentary?
The other interesting point in the Axel Springer case is that he was seen as having “actively sought the limelight” which reduced his “legitimate expectation” that his private life would be protected.
That was a point made in the McCann case, that they had voluntarily become public figures, which meant they couldn't expect the same protection of their privacy as less public people can expect.
-
del, wrong case.
-
1. Was there an infringement of the applicants' right to respect for their private life, within the meaning of Article 8 § 1 of the Convention (see, Axel Springer AG v. Germany [GC], no. 39954/08 , § 83, 7 February 2012; and Larrañaga Arando and Others v. Spain (dec.), Nos. 73911/16, 233/17 3086/17 and 5155/17, § 42, 25 June 2019) with regard in particular to the allegations made by GA in the disputed book and documentary?
The other interesting point in the Axel Springer case is that he was seen as having “actively sought the limelight” which reduced his “legitimate expectation” that his private life would be protected.
That was a point made in the McCann case, that they had voluntarily become public figures, which meant they couldn't expect the same protection of their privacy as less public people can expect.
The ECHR also said of the article
In respect of the content, form and consequence of the articles, the Court found that the articles only related to the facts and did not contain any “disparaging expression or unsubstantiated allegation” - can the same be said of Amaral’s book?
-
1. Was there an infringement of the applicants' right to respect for their private life, within the meaning of Article 8 § 1 of the Convention (see, Axel Springer AG v. Germany [GC], no. 39954/08 , § 83, 7 February 2012; and Larrañaga Arando and Others v. Spain (dec.), Nos. 73911/16, 233/17 3086/17 and 5155/17, § 42, 25 June 2019) with regard in particular to the allegations made by GA in the disputed book and documentary?
The other interesting point in the Axel Springer case is that he was seen as having “actively sought the limelight” which reduced his “legitimate expectation” that his private life would be protected.
That was a point made in the McCann case, that they had voluntarily become public figures, which meant they couldn't expect the same protection of their privacy as less public people can expect.
Axel Springer AG is a German publishing company, not an actor. They own Bild, the daily newspaper which printed the story about a famous German actor's arrest in 2004 for possession of Cocaine. He played a police detective in a long-running TV series. As a public figure in Germany, the actor enjoyed less right to a private life in Germany as far as the media were concerned. (Think George Michael).
The McCanns were not public figures with any influence over Portuguese society prior to Madeleine's disappearance. The subsequent publicity they sought was purely to seek help in locating Madeleine and not for self-promotion or influence in any capacity.
Therefore, imo, there is a marked difference in the 2 cases regarding the status of a public figure as per article 8.
*Edited to alter public to private
-
Axel Springer AG is a German publishing company, not an actor. They own Bild, the daily newspaper which printed the story about a famous German actor's arrest in 2004 for possession of Cocaine. He played a police detective in a long-running TV series. As a public figure in Germany, the actor enjoyed less right to a public life in Germany as far as the media were concerned. (Think George Michael).
The McCanns were not public figures with any influence over Portuguese society prior to Madeleine's disappearance. The subsequent publicity they sought was purely to seek help in locating Madeleine and not for self-promotion or influence in any capacity.
Therefore, imo, there is a marked difference in the 2 cases regarding the status of a public figure as per article 8.
Succinctly put, Misty.
I think the European court will look with a less jaundiced eye on two people trying to publicise their missing daughter's plight than either the Portuguese or the Kangaroo court of the internet did.
-
1. Was there an infringement of the applicants' right to respect for their private life, within the meaning of Article 8 § 1 of the Convention (see, Axel Springer AG v. Germany [GC], no. 39954/08 , § 83, 7 February 2012; and Larrañaga Arando and Others v. Spain (dec.), Nos. 73911/16, 233/17 3086/17 and 5155/17, § 42, 25 June 2019) with regard in particular to the allegations made by GA in the disputed book and documentary?
The other interesting point in the Axel Springer case is that he was seen as having “actively sought the limelight” which reduced his “legitimate expectation” that his private life would be protected.
That was a point made in the McCann case, that they had voluntarily become public figures, which meant they couldn't expect the same protection of their privacy as less public people can expect.
When did they become public figures?
-
When did they become public figures?
When Kate told the world she couldn't make love to Gerry.?
https://www.thesun.co.uk/archives/news/534451/i-couldnt-make-love-to-gerry/
-
Axel Springer AG is a German publishing company, not an actor. They own Bild, the daily newspaper which printed the story about a famous German actor's arrest in 2004 for possession of Cocaine. He played a police detective in a long-running TV series. As a public figure in Germany, the actor enjoyed less right to a private life in Germany as far as the media were concerned. (Think George Michael).
The McCanns were not public figures with any influence over Portuguese society prior to Madeleine's disappearance. The subsequent publicity they sought was purely to seek help in locating Madeleine and not for self-promotion or influence in any capacity.
Therefore, imo, there is a marked difference in the 2 cases regarding the status of a public figure as per article 8.
*Edited to alter public to private
I expect there are all kinds of reasons why people become public figures. It's the fact that they are that is significant.
-
When can we expect to learn the definitive outcome?
-
When Kate told the world she couldn't make love to Gerry.?
https://www.thesun.co.uk/archives/news/534451/i-couldnt-make-love-to-gerry/
So quite some time after Amaral published his book then?
-
So quite some time after Amaral published his book then?
Before or after their litigation against Amaral and the tv stations ?
-
Before or after their litigation against Amaral and the tv stations ?
Don’t answer a question with a question, it’s bad form.
-
Don’t answer a question with a question, it’s bad form.
I've a reputation to maintain, and I will.
-
When can we expect to learn the definitive outcome?
Read elsewhere but haven't looked, after receiving communication from the echr Portugal have 12 weeks to respond.A while yet.
-
Read elsewhere but haven't looked, after receiving communication from the echr Portugal have 12 weeks to respond.A while yet.
Thanks barrier. It will be very interesting to see which way it goes.
-
Its finally dawning on the sun at least.
In ensuing claims and appeals, Mr Amaral was cleared of any wrong doing which led to the McCanns’ latest action being filed against the country’s top court rather than the ex officer.
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/14128062/madeleine-mccann-christian-b-parents-charged-lawyer/
-
Its finally dawning on the sun at least.
In ensuing claims and appeals, Mr Amaral was cleared of any wrong doing which led to the McCanns’ latest action being filed against the country’s top court rather than the ex officer.
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/14128062/madeleine-mccann-christian-b-parents-charged-lawyer/
"It’s never been about seeking damages but simply trying to stop false and malicious accusations being spouted. They still have no idea if their appeal in their fight for justice will be granted, or not.”
I thought it was about;
"It was entirely focused on the effect of the libels on our other children and the damage that was done to the search for Madeleine."
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-32501647
-
Its finally dawning on the sun at least.
In ensuing claims and appeals, Mr Amaral was cleared of any wrong doing which led to the McCanns’ latest action being filed against the country’s top court rather than the ex officer.
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/14128062/madeleine-mccann-christian-b-parents-charged-lawyer/
Now why has this story been released? It's not as if there is anything really new in it.
-
Now why has this story been released? It's not as if there is anything really new in it.
What is new is the admission that the application is against Portugal, not Amaral. There's also no mention of any cost being involved. No compensation to be paid, no emptying out of Madeleine's Fund.
Admitting losing another case against Amaral would, imo, be more humiliating than losing a case against the Portuguese state. Just my thoughts.....
-
What is new is the admission that the application is against Portugal, not Amaral. There's also no mention of any cost being involved. No compensation to be paid, no emptying out of Madeleine's Fund.
Admitting losing another case against Amaral would, imo, be more humiliating than losing a case against the Portuguese state. Just my thoughts.....
I believe the fund accounts are due to be made public next month so I suppose we’ll see then if the money owed from the failed libel case has been paid yet.
-
I believe the fund accounts are due to be made public next month so I suppose we’ll see then if the money owed from the failed libel case has been paid yet.
I’m sure we can count on you to bring us the news the moment the accounts are published, as always. Were they filed late? I presume not as you would no doubt have taken great delight in telling us about that too.
-
What is new is the admission that the application is against Portugal, not Amaral. There's also no mention of any cost being involved. No compensation to be paid, no emptying out of Madeleine's Fund.
Admitting losing another case against Amaral would, imo, be more humiliating than losing a case against the Portuguese state. Just my thoughts.....
I can't believe that the Sun have suddenly decided to do honest reporting for no reason.
Do they know something that we don't regarding this application ?
-
What is new is the admission that the application is against Portugal, not Amaral. There's also no mention of any cost being involved. No compensation to be paid, no emptying out of Madeleine's Fund.
Admitting losing another case against Amaral would, imo, be more humiliating than losing a case against the Portuguese state. Just my thoughts.....
But how humiliating for Portugal and Amaral if they lose
-
I can't believe that the Sun have suddenly decided to do honest reporting for no reason.
Do they know something that we don't regarding this application ?
I expect so. I expect the ECHR came to a decision in secret and decided only to tell the Sun, but asked them to break it to the expectant nation gently to prevent a mass outpouring of grief.
-
But how humiliating for Portugal and Amaral if they lose
I didn't think areas of land were capable of feeling emotions, but, you're the scientist so maybe you know better.
-
I didn't think areas of land were capable of feeling emotions, but, you're the scientist so maybe you know better.
I don't know about other land masses but certainly there's a precedent for Portugal
https://face2faceafrica.com/article/angola-and-portugal-relations
-
I don't know about other land masses but certainly there's a precedent for Portugal
https://face2faceafrica.com/article/angola-and-portugal-relations
I just checked & apparently Britain can also sense humiliation.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2019/09/05/failing-deliver-brexit-will-inflict-britain-national-humiliation/
A fascinating concept, the self awareness of mud & rock.
-
I just checked & apparently Britain can also sense humiliation.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2019/09/05/failing-deliver-brexit-will-inflict-britain-national-humiliation/
A fascinating concept, the self awareness of mud & rock.
You're just soooooo literal.
-
I’m sure we can count on you to bring us the news the moment the accounts are published, as always. Were they filed late? I presume not as you would no doubt have taken great delight in telling us about that too.
They appear to be getting filed later than usual. Probably because they're taking advantage of the 3 month extension to the deadline.
-
They appear to be getting filed later than usual. Probably because they're taking advantage of the 3 month extension to the deadline.
Oh no, does this mean we've got to wait longer than usual for our yearly poring over the Fund's accounts? What a shame.
-
They appear to be getting filed later than usual. Probably because they're taking advantage of the 3 month extension to the deadline.
I don't suppose they are doing much 'business' at the moment, so maybe timely accounts are a bit of a bore just now.
-
They appear to be getting filed later than usual. Probably because they're taking advantage of the 3 month extension to the deadline.
TBH I think that those involved in the fund have a bit of a cheek still taking money for the ‘search’ when a) the British, Portuguese and German taxpayers are now financing the search to the tune of tens of millions of pounds and b) apart from a free Facebook page, which only posts something when the webmistress is prodded, there seems to be absolutely no visible activity being carried out by them.
-
TBH I think that those involved in the fund have a bit of a cheek still taking money for the ‘search’ when a) the British, Portuguese and German taxpayers are now financing the search to the tune of tens of millions of pounds and b) apart from a free Facebook page, which only posts something when the webmistress is prodded, there seems to be absolutely no visible activity being carried out by them.
I find it difficult to believe people are still donating ?
-
I don't suppose they are doing much 'business' at the moment, so maybe timely accounts are a bit of a bore just now.
The company never traded much in the accepted sense anyway, just the wristbands etc. Lately it seems income has been mostly from sales of Kate's book, and expenditure has been mostly connected to the 'Libel trial'.
-
I find it difficult to believe people are still donating ?
I’m sure there’ll still be the diehards but the fact that they still have the donate button on their website beggars belief. If SY, the PJ and the BKA’s investigations come to nothing what do they think another private investigation will do?
-
I’m sure there’ll still be the diehards but the fact that they still have the donate button on their website beggars belief. If SY, the PJ and the BKA’s investigations come to nothing what do they think another private investigation will do?
Some people would commend the parents for never giving up, obviously some people would never commend the McCanns no matter what they did.
-
I’m sure there’ll still be the diehards but the fact that they still have the donate button on their website beggars belief. If SY, the PJ and the BKA’s investigations come to nothing what do they think another private investigation will do?
i suppose they leave it on for the Tesco reason - every little helps - even if they're not currently doing anything
-
Enough of the nastiness and get back on topic which is NOT Madeleine's fund.
-
Enough of the nastiness and get back on topic which is NOT Madeleine's fund.
Madeleine's Fund may not be written in the topic title, but it's certainly linked to the subject.
Madeleine's Fund bankrolled the action against Amaral et al, and would probably have got his money had it succeeded. It has also been claimed in the media that if the McCanns lose at the EHCR the Fund could be wiped out.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6178661/Public-fund-Madeline-McCann-WIPED-upcoming-court-case.html
-
When Kate told the world she couldn't make love to Gerry.?
https://www.thesun.co.uk/archives/news/534451/i-couldnt-make-love-to-gerry/
Kate also complained about the press ignoring her as she didn't have big B...BS.. They became z list' celebrities', Started a business ...
-
Kate also complained about the press ignoring her as she didn't have big B...BS.. They became z list' celebrities', Started a business ...
Please provide a cite.
-
Kate also complained about the press ignoring her as she didn't have big B...BS.. They became z list' celebrities', Started a business ...
If Kate's chest measurements form any part of the complaint submitted to the ECHR your post is on topic. If not your post is off topic and a transparent attempt at yet another slur. Do please desist.
-
Its where its at, at the moment. All to be found on the ECHR web.
Rule 54 2b
(b) give notice of the application or part of the application to the respondent Contracting Party and
invite that Party to submit written observations thereon and, upon receipt thereof, invite the
applicant to submit observations in reply;
-
Its where its at, at the moment. All to be found on the ECHR web.
Rule 54 2b
(b) give notice of the application or part of the application to the respondent Contracting Party and
invite that Party to submit written observations thereon and, upon receipt thereof, invite the
applicant to submit observations in reply;
In plain Engerlish:
Get your people to talk to my people and our people will talk to their people. and all people will talk hence forth innnit bruv
-
So what's the latest in the appeal to the ECHR?
-
So what's the latest in the appeal to the ECHR?
Not sure but it seems to be progressing.
What I have noticed is Amaral being far far more reserved in his statements revtge McCanns.. And no longer promoting hus ideas
-
Not sure but it seems to be progressing.
What I have noticed is Amaral being far far more reserved in his statements revtge McCanns.. And no longer promoting hus ideas
It all appears to have gone flat 🤔
-
It all appears to have gone flat 🤔
That's how the ECHR works. I've looked at a lot of cases where there is a conflict between articles 8 and 10..and from what I've seen the McCans have a very strong case.
Then there is the fact that when cases go to Judgement the SC of Portugal loses 9 out of 10 times. We will see
-
So what's the latest in the appeal to the ECHR?
Not sure but it seems to be progressing.
What I have noticed is Amaral being far far more reserved in his statements revtge McCanns.. And no longer promoting hus ideas
Strange sort of progress when its not even a noteworthy pending case, those that are were communicated back in 2017, a while to wait yet.
-
Strange sort of progress when its not even a noteworthy pending case, those that are were communicated back in 2017, a while to wait yet.
Remember so many sceptics saying it wouldn't get this far.. Saying they didn't believe the McCanns wouldn't even bother.
It's certainly shut amaral up
-
Strange sort of progress when its not even a noteworthy pending case, those that are were communicated back in 2017, a while to wait yet.
I suppose cases are vetted and those considered to be of importance are pushed up the list for a judgement while those less important continue to wait.
-
I suppose cases are vetted and those considered to be of importance are pushed up the list for a judgement while those less important continue to wait.
I think the distinction is between urgent and important, not degrees of importance.
-
I think the distinction is between urgent and important, not degrees of importance.
Sceptics seem to think CB has a case.. I don't.. But hypothetically I wonder at what level of importance they would put that case
-
Sceptics seem to think CB has a case.. I don't.. But hypothetically I wonder at what level of importance they would put that case
None what so ever, much like the McCann case.
-
None what so ever, much like the McCann case.
The McCann case is moving through the system
-
None what so ever, much like the McCann case.
Brueckner has had his 'speedy' day in the European Court. The result? well - the fact he is still in jail speaks volumes.
-
Brueckner has had his 'speedy' day in the European Court. The result? well - the fact he is still in jail speaks volumes.
That wasn't the ECHR
-
Brueckner has had his 'speedy' day in the European Court. The result? well - the fact he is still in jail speaks volumes.
He was sentenced for raping a woman so he's being kept him in jail for murdering Maddie?
I think that might be a human rights breach.
-
The McCann case is moving through the system
Nope, its got to a road block.
-
Nope, its got to a road block.
You haven't got a clue what's happening with it... You just imagine you do. There could be an announcement tomorrow for all you know
-
You haven't got a clue what's happening with it... You just imagine you do. There could be an announcement tomorrow for all you know
I'm as clued up on it as you, if you think thats b....r all, says alot about you.
-
I'm as clued up on it as you, if you think thats b....r all, says alot about you.
Si you accept I know as much as you about when an announcement will be made.. Neither of us know..could be anytime...
-
Si you accept I know as much as you about when an announcement will be made.. Neither of us know..could be anytime...
Notice you don't put soon in there, I'm taking my info from the hudoc site where the McCann/Healey V Portugal is not even on a noteworthy pending board, those that are were communicated in 2017, that by simple reasoning the case is way down any priority listing.
-
Notice you don't put soon in there, I'm taking my info from the hudoc site where the McCann/Healey V Portugal is not even on a noteworthy pending board, those that are were communicated in 2017, that by simple reasoning the case is way down any priority listing.
Were you expecting the announcement in Jan... I wasn't.. Came as a surprise.. Perhaps we will have another one soon
-
Were you expecting the announcement in Jan... I wasn't.. Came as a surprise.. Perhaps we will have another one soon
There is an announcement in January - 2027. So Barrier has your kecks down once again. Nothing changes here.
-
I guess the ECHR has by now shut down for this year without announcing a verdict in McCann/Healy v Portugal.
For all those forum members who hoped for a result this year, there's always 2022 to look forward to and who knows, maybe even into 2023 and beyond.
-
I guess the ECHR has by now shut down for this year without announcing a verdict in McCann/Healy v Portugal.
For all those forum members who hoped for a result this year, there's always 2022 to look forward to and who knows, maybe even into 2023 and beyond.
Needlessly goady. IMO.
-
The only thing I hope happens wrt to this case in 2022 is that the right person is charged and found guilty of abducting Madeleine McCann and that the case can be put to bed once and for all. I don’t hold out any hope of her being found alive but I do hope for peace and resolution for her family. If that has to wait until 2023 or beyond then so be it.
-
I guess the ECHR has by now shut down for this year without announcing a verdict in McCann/Healy v Portugal.
For all those forum members who hoped for a result this year, there's always 2022 to look forward to and who knows, maybe even into 2023 and beyond.
Obviously GA supporters are not looking forward to it.
I am.. I'm interested to know if I'll be proved right... I'm sure I will be
-
Obviously GA supporters are not looking forward to it.
I am.. I'm interested to know if I'll be proved right... I'm sure I will be
So am I, not least to see what effect the verdict has on anything.
-
So am I, not least to see what effect the verdict has on anything.
Then I think just about everyone is looking forward to it.. Nothing wrong with looking forward to it..
-
I guess the ECHR has by now shut down for this year without announcing a verdict in McCann/Healy v Portugal.
For all those forum members who hoped for a result this year, there's always 2022 to look forward to and who knows, maybe even into 2023 and beyond.
Still not on the notable pending list.
-
The only thing I hope happens wrt to this case in 2022 is that the right person is charged and found guilty of abducting Madeleine McCann and that the case can be put to bed once and for all. I don’t hold out any hope of her being found alive but I do hope for peace and resolution for her family. If that has to wait until 2023 or beyond then so be it.
I too hope for justice for Madeleine, you know the little girl at the heart of this.
-
I too hope for justice for Madeleine, you know the little girl at the heart of this.
Are you insinuating that I’m unaware that Madeleine is the little girl at the heart of this? Nice bit of virtue signalling on your part, well done.
-
Still not on the notable pending list.
It obviously holds little priority.
-
It obviously holds little priority.
And why should it when the Court has to deal with far more serious breaches of human rights.
-
It obviously holds little priority.
Justice will be worth waiting for
.from looking at other cases the McCannd s have an overwhelming case. They will then have the right to ask the Portuguese courts to re-open the case and make a new judgement based on the findings of the.
ECHR... That could be devastating for GA
-
Dream on.
-
Dream on.
Unfortunately for sceptics everything I've posted is based on facts... Unlike your comment
When it comes to balance between articles 8 and 10 what the ECHR sees as important is the veracity of the claims.
It clearly seems the SC got it wrong and believed there was evidence against the McCanns to support Amarals claims.
We know as a fact his claims were not supported by evidence
-
Not really interested in your opinion of what you think will happen, interested in what will actually happen and what impact it will have - something that none of us yet know.
-
Not really interested in your opinion of what you think will happen, interested in what will actually happen and what impact it will have - something that none of us yet know.
I'm not bothered about your opinion either..In fact the forum is full of opinions. Most of those opinions are based on next to nothing... Mines based on facts. That's the difference of
-
I'm not bothered about your opinion either..In fact the forum is full of opinions. Most of those opinions are based on next to nothing... Mines based on facts. That's the difference of
So you believe.
In reality, as far as ECHR is concerned, all that matters is what the judges decide - and I don't think they will be consulting you.
-
Unfortunately for sceptics everything I've posted is based on facts... Unlike your comment
When it comes to balance between articles 8 and 10 what the ECHR sees as important is the veracity of the claims.
It clearly seems the SC got it wrong and believed there was evidence against the McCanns to support Amarals claims.
We know as a fact his claims were not supported by evidence
I think you are pinning your hopes on an incorrect understanding of the scope of an ECHR investigation. The truth of an opinion can't be decided upon by the ECHR. All they can do is judge whether the opinion was based upon facts or just invented. The facts used by Amaral to form his opinion were mostly taken from the official investigation, and that's enough, imo, to answer that question.
You are taking it a step further and expecting the ECHR to judge whether Amaral formed the correct opinion. That's beyond the remit of the ECHR imo.
-
I think you are pinning your hopes on an incorrect understanding of the scope of an ECHR investigation. The truth of an opinion can't be decided upon by the ECHR. All they can do is judge whether the opinion was based upon facts or just invented. The facts used by Amaral to form his opinion were mostly taken from the official investigation, and that's enough, imo, to answer that question.
You are taking it a step further and expecting the ECHR to judge whether Amaral formed the correct opinion. That's beyond the remit of the ECHR imo.
You seem to totally misunderstand my post and the scope of the ECHR.
It is as simple as I've described . It's based on the veracity of the facts amaral used to support his clains. ...plus.. Was it balanced.
Much of the important things Amaral said, are not in the files. ...and his book is certainly not a balanced review
You just can't seem to accept reality imo.
-
You seem to totally misunderstand my post and the scope of the ECHR.
It is as simple as I've described . It's based on the veracity of the facts amaral used to support his clains. ...plus.. Was it balanced.
Much of the important things Amaral said, are not in the files. ...and his book is certainly not a balanced review
You just can't seem to accept reality imo.
I understand what you say, I just don't agree with it. Your reality isn't mine.
-
I understand what you say, I just don't agree with it. Your reality isn't mine.
My reality is what the ECHR clearly state and the results of past cases. That seems logical to me.. I suspect yours is dogs don't lie
-
You seem to totally misunderstand my post and the scope of the ECHR.
It is as simple as I've described . It's based on the veracity of the facts amaral used to support his clains. ...plus.. Was it balanced.
Much of the important things Amaral said, are not in the files. ...and his book is certainly not a balanced review
You just can't seem to accept reality imo.
Your opinion is a biased view, the Judges will not be.
-
So you believe.
In reality, as far as ECHR is concerned, all that matters is what the judges decide - and I don't think they will be consulting you.
Touché
-
Your opinion is a biased view, the Judges will not be.
All you can do is make baseless accusations and contribute no facts to the discussion... My opinion is based on facts... Your opinion is not
-
So you believe.
In reality, as far as ECHR is concerned, all that matters is what the judges decide - and I don't think they will be consulting you.
Same as barrier.. A sniping post with nothing to add to thee discussion. For someone who claims you are not interested in my opinion you ate paying a lot of attention to it.. Lol
-
All you can do is make baseless accusations and contribute no facts to the discussion... My opinion is based on facts... Your opinion is not
But only as you interpret them.
-
But only as you interpret them.
Nope.. As the ECHR interpret them in past cases
-
If one went only on precedent of past cases, there would be no need for anything to be considered by judges.
-
Same as barrier.. A sniping post with nothing to add to thee discussion. For someone who claims you are not interested in my opinion you ate paying a lot of attention to it.. Lol
Its a new year but same old, you hold your opinion in such high esteem anyone who disagrees is seen to be sniping.
You claim to have read so much about previous cases and how they in your opinion will impact on the McCann/Healey V Portugal case and then have an impact on Amaral should the judges rule against Portugal.
How many of these case's involved an as yet unsolved missing child case and a detective who successfully went through the appeal courts of Portugal ( substitute the country of choice) ?
-
If one went only on precedent of past cases, there would be no need for anything to be considered by judges.
Thsts, what the, ECHR has said.. Basically the judgement in thee McCanns case has already been decided based on previous judgements... Level 3
-
Its a new year but same old, you hold your opinion in such high esteem anyone who disagrees is seen to be sniping.
You claim to have read so much about previous cases and how they in your opinion will impact on the McCann/Healey V Portugal case and then have an impact on Amaral should the judges rule against Portugal.
How many of these case's involved an as yet unsolved missing child case and a detective who successfully went through the appeal courts of Portugal ( substitute the country of choice) ?
Several
-
Thsts, what the, ECHR has said.. Basically the judgement in thee McCanns case has already been decided based on previous judgements... Level 3
Have you a cite for that ?
-
My reality is what the ECHR clearly state and the results of past cases. That seems logical to me.. I suspect yours is dogs don't lie
Your opinion is based on your understanding of what the ECHR state and of the issues raised in past cases. Your understanding differs from mine.
-
Have you a cite for that ?
Yes
-
Your opinion is based on your understanding of what the ECHR state and of the issues raised in past cases. Your understanding differs from mine.
The ECHR has already designated the case as level 3...covered by existing case law
-
Several
Give an example of any impact on an individual after the ECHR ruled against a country ?
-
The ECHR has already designated the case as level 3...covered by existing case law
Low importance.
-
Low importance.
Nothing the ECHR can say will have any consequences on the Madeleine case in my view. The McCanns lost their case very publicly in Portugal and when they attempted to claim that they had been cleared, the Portuguese Supreme Court issued a swift rebuke by way of a clarification to state otherwise.
-
I get the impression that countries can pretty much ignore rulings that go against them so even if McCann wins it will be of little consequence to Portugal.
-
Nothing the ECHR can say will have any consequences on the Madeleine case in my view. The McCanns lost their case very publicly in Portugal and when they attempted to claim that they had been cleared, the Portuguese Supreme Court issued a swift rebuke by way of a clarification to state otherwise.
The SC never said they had not been cleared. I think you will find the SC will be heavily criticised in my view. It has a very poor recirdvat the ECHR.
It obviously won't affect thevcade which imo has been solved by the Germans
The mist interesting point is that it has been shown that a favourable verdict could lead to the libel case being reopened in Portugal
For clarity the SC in 2017 said the mccanns were not clesred by the archiving despatch in 2008. They didn't say they had not been cleared. I think it's quite obvious the despatch was evidence if innocence which the SC refused to accept
-
I get the impression that countries can pretty much ignore rulings that go against them so even if McCann wins it will be of little consequence to Portugal.
That may well not be true... Again based on facts
-
I get the impression that countries can pretty much ignore rulings that go against them so even if McCann wins it will be of little consequence to Portugal.
It would be a moral victory for the McCanns and that would be enough.
-
The SC never said they had not been cleared. I think you will find the SC will be heavily criticised in my view. It has a very poor recirdvat the ECHR.
It obviously won't affect thevcade which imo has been solved by the Germans
The mist interesting point is that it has been shown that a favourable verdict could lead to the libel case being reopened in Portugal
For clarity the SC in 2017 said the mccanns were not clesred by the archiving despatch in 2008. They didn't say they had not been cleared. I think it's quite obvious the despatch was evidence if innocence which the SC refused to accept
The McCann's lawyer specifically claimed that they were cleared by the archiving dispatch. That's what the SC judges were addressing and replying to. The lawyer made her claim because she relied on the prosecutor's choice of archiving the case under 277/1. According to the SC judges, the correct choice was 277/2. This disagreement is solely about Portuguese law, which the ECHR has no mandate to interfere in.
-
The ECHR has already designated the case as level 3...covered by existing case law
Is that what you think level 3 means?
-
Is that what you think level 3 means?
It's not what I think it's one of the reasons for an application to be designated level3...fact
Not only that it's what I predicted.. The Case is covered by existing case law.. Quite a coincidence.
What we don't have is a precise decision of what.. Importance... Means in this context
-
The McCann's lawyer specifically claimed that they were cleared by the archiving dispatch. That's what the SC judges were addressing and replying to. The lawyer made her claim because she relied on the prosecutor's choice of archiving the case under 277/1. According to the SC judges, the correct choice was 277/2. This disagreement is solely about Portuguese law, which the ECHR has no mandate to interfere in.
I'm not impressed or convinced by what the SC said... I think they may have believed that there was evidence against the McCanns when there was not
You should know thst the mandate to reopen the case comes from Portuguese law.. Not ECHR law
-
Is that what you think level 3 means?
Just had a look and as I thought importance does not relate to what several posters here think.
It relates to how much an application provides new case law
Leave three indicates a case that can be decided in existing case law
-
Level 3: 3 = Low importance: Judgments, decisions and advisory opinions of little legal interest,
namely judgments and decisions that simply apply existing case-law, friendly
settlements and strike outs (unless raising a particular point of interest).
-
Level 3: 3 = Low importance: Judgments, decisions and advisory opinions of little legal interest,
namely judgments and decisions that simply apply existing case-law, friendly
settlements and strike outs (unless raising a particular point of interest).
What does that mean?
-
Level 3: 3 = Low importance: Judgments, decisions and advisory opinions of little legal interest,
namely judgments and decisions that simply apply existing case-law, friendly
settlements and strike outs (unless raising a particular point of interest).
Precisely... The importance relates to the legal significance not to the importance if the case in question.. I'm right again
-
What does that mean?
I would explain but you dint value my opinion lol
-
What does that mean?
That is a good question.
-
That is a good question.
Dont you have the answer.. I do . Perhaps guniit does too. It supports what I have said
-
Precisely... The importance relates to the legal significance not to the importance if the case in question.. I'm right again
If its not legally important ergo its not important, only to you.
-
Dont you have the answer.. I do . Perhaps guniit does too. It supports what I have said
I do, I might have answered jassi by pm, don't assume we talk just in the open.
-
I would explain but you dint value my opinion lol
I was looking for a meaning, not an opinion.
-
I was looking for a meaning, not an opinion.
It's in English so you sould be able to understand it. I have the meaning... It looks like you and others don't understand it enough to even give an opinion. Its self explanatory
-
I do, I might have answered jassi by pm, don't assume we talk just in the open.
Lol.. Dint you have the confidence to post..
-
Nothing the ECHR can say will have any consequences on the Madeleine case in my view. The McCanns lost their case very publicly in Portugal and when they attempted to claim that they had been cleared, the Portuguese Supreme Court issued a swift rebuke by way of a clarification to state otherwise.
Meanwhile I have been ghosted. Wha( a very sorry tale..
-
I was looking for a meaning, not an opinion.
Level 3: 3 = Low importance: Judgments, decisions and advisory opinions of little legal interest,
namely judgments and decisions that simply apply existing case-law, friendly
settlements and strike outs (unless raising a particular point of interest).
Level 3 cases come under the heading of nothing legally new or significant. They are dealt with EITHER by applying existing case law, by the parties agreeing to a friendly settlement or by being struck out.
So there are three possible outcomes, bolded.
-
Level 3: 3 = Low importance: Judgments, decisions and advisory opinions of little legal interest,
namely judgments and decisions that simply apply existing case-law, friendly
settlements and strike outs (unless raising a particular point of interest).
Level 3 cases come under the heading of nothing legally new or significant. They are dealt with EITHER by applying existing case law, by the parties agreeing to a friendly settlement or by being struck out.
So there are three possible outcomes, bolded.
the friendly settlement was offerred 12 months ago....I think its fair to say it didnt happen based on the timeline. No evidence its been thrown out..which leaves...existing case law.
You can of course keep denying they inevitable. Interestingly its shown importance doea not relate to the importance of the case
-
the friendly settlement was offerred 12 months ago....I think its fair to say it didnt happen based on the timeline. No evidence its been thrown out..which leaves...existing case law.
You can of course keep denying they inevitable. Interestingly its shown importance doea not relate to the importance of the case
We don't know what's going on; the various parties could still be offering arguments. All three possibilities are still on the table.
-
We don't know what's going on; the various parties could still be offering arguments. All three possibilities are still on the table.
'Patience is a virtue' so we will just have to employ some as we wait to see.
-
We don't know what's going on; the various parties could still be offering arguments. All three possibilities are still on the table.
You don't know what's on the table. Portugal has never agreed to a friendly settlement... It is ss I understand financial.
The point is the importance is not Re the importance of this case but about the legal points in question... Existing case law
-
You don't know what's on the table. Portugal has never agreed to a friendly settlement... It is ss I understand financial.
The point is the importance is not Re the importance of this case but about the legal points in question... Existing case law
If the ECHR apply their existing case law to the McCann case they may well apply it quite differently to how you think it applies. I think Brietta's right; we can only wait to see what happens.
-
If the ECHR apply their existing case law to the McCann case they may well apply it quite differently to how you think it applies. I think Brietta's right; we can only wait to see what happens.
Why should they apply it differently.... Why do you suddenly have a problem with a poster offering an opinion based on facts. The reasoning they apply is quite clear which I've posted several times
-
Why should they apply it differently.... Why do you suddenly have a problem with a poster offering an opinion based on facts. The reasoning they apply is quite clear which I've posted several times
Your opinion of how the ECHR reason may be wrong.
-
Your opinion of how the ECHR reason may be wrong.
I'm quoting their guidelines... They cannot be wrong
-
I'm quoting their guidelines... They cannot be wrong
We shall see.
-
Guidelines are not the same as rules, else cases could be decided by a computer program.
Judges decide if a particular case meets certain guideline criteria
-
Guidelines are not the same as rules, else cases could be decided by a computer program.
Judges decide if a particular case meets certain guideline criteria
Lol... The judges have to follow the guidelines... And if you knew anything about them.. Which you obviously don't... You might understand
-
Lol... The judges have to follow the guidelines... And if you knew anything about them.. Which you obviously don't... You might understand
I don't need to know details - it's not me that taking guidelines into consideration when determining a verdict.
Nor is it you.
-
I don't need to know details - it's not me that taking guidelines into consideration when determining a verdict.
Nor is it you.
It's me that's making an informed opinion.. Others are uninformed. If you understood how things work you would realise what a strong case the McCanns have
-
It's me that's making an informed opinion.. Others are uninformed. If you understood how things work you would realise what a strong case the McCanns have
If it's that strong, I would have expected a result long before now.
I think I'll wait for a proper judgement instead of trying second guessing.
-
If it's that strong, I would have expected a result long before now.
I think I'll wait for a proper judgement instead of trying second guessing.
Is it your view then that the weaker the case the longer it takes to get heard? That’s a novel approach.
-
If it's that strong, I would have expected a result long before now.
I think I'll wait for a proper judgement instead of trying second guessing.
It would be guessing in your case as you have no knowledge of how the ECHR reach their decisions. If you've read this thread there's been second guessing from many posters for the past five years.
Seems like sceptics have decided that discussing how something might turn out is a waste if time.. Despite them doing it for the past 14 years... What a laugh they are
-
It would be guessing in your case as you have no knowledge of how the ECHR reach their decisions. If you've read this thread there's been second guessing from many posters for the past five years.
Seems like sceptics have decided that discussing how something might turn out is a waste if time.. Despite them doing it for the past 14 years... What a laugh they are
Frankly I'm not interested in how a decision is made, only what the decision is.
Obviously I will be delighted if McCann faces humiliation again, but I have no real problem whatever the result - after all, i't not as I have any personal involvement.
-
Frankly I'm not interested in how a decision is made, only what the decision is.
Obviously I will be delighted if McCann faces humiliation again, but I have no real problem whatever the result - after all, i't not as I have any personal involvement.
Clearly you do have some personal investment in the result otherwise it wouldn’t be likely to provoke such an emotional response.
-
Frankly I'm not interested in how a decision is made, only what the decision is.
Obviously I will be delighted if McCann faces humiliation again, but I have no real problem whatever the result - after all, i't not as I have any personal involvement.
I think it's a sign of intelligence to want to understand how things work
-
Meanwhile I have been ghosted. Wha( a very sorry tale..
I am very upset that Eleanor has been treated so shabbily. She has worked long hours, with total integrity, for 9 years for John. She has supported him robustly for years in a totally faithful way arguing against me many times when I have questioned Johns approach in phone calls to her.
For a woman in her eighties to suddenly find via forum that she has been dropped/sacked (call it what you like) without any explanation, discussion or warning sickens me.
Complaints about her were not made by the usual means where she could have defended herself, or if necessary adjusted her approach, but were made by a backdoor route. Shame on all involved.
Sorry, but I am so angered that I had to say it
Please do not remove this. Freedom of Speech etc.
-
I am very upset that Eleanor has been treated so shabbily. She has worked long hours, with total integrity, for 9 years for John. She has supported him robustly for years in a totally faithful way arguing against me many times when I have questioned Johns approach in phone calls to her.
For a woman in her eighties to suddenly find via forum that she has been dropped/sacked (call it what you like) without any explanation, discussion or warning sickens me.
Complaints about her were not made by the usual means where she could have defended herself, or if necessary adjusted her approach, but were made by a backdoor route. Shame on all involved.
Sorry, but I am so angered that I had to say it
Please do not remove this. Freedom of Speech etc.
Why what happened? El is still here as senior mod, I prefer rockers myself.
-
I am very upset that Eleanor has been treated so shabbily. She has worked long hours, with total integrity, for 9 years for John. She has supported him robustly for years in a totally faithful way arguing against me many times when I have questioned Johns approach in phone calls to her.
For a woman in her eighties to suddenly find via forum that she has been dropped/sacked (call it what you like) without any explanation, discussion or warning sickens me.
Complaints about her were not made by the usual means where she could have defended herself, or if necessary adjusted her approach, but were made by a backdoor route. Shame on all involved.
Sorry, but I am so angered that I had to say it
Please do not remove this. Freedom of Speech etc.
I would love to know what this so-called backdoor route is. I'm inclined to think it's existence is the product of an over-active imagination.
-
I would love to know what this so-called backdoor route is. I'm inclined to think it's existence is the product of an over-active imagination.
I expect Sadie means by PM, which enables people to complain about and discuss others’ behind their backs. Were you unaware of this facility?
-
I expect Sadie means by PM, which enables people to complain about and discuss others’ behind their backs. Were you unaware of this facility?
People can do what they like via PM, but I doubt if action will be taken unless any complaint is valid.
-
People can do what they like via PM, but I doubt if action will be taken unless any complaint is valid.
Bit of a cowardly attack on another moderator, don't you think, Gunit?
No chance for Eleanor to respond and put her side of the case if she doesn't know about it? If she had erred, no chance to modify things. And after nine years of faithful service, whilst being backed by John most of the time.
What a shock for an octarian lady who had given of herself so heartily
Eleanor is full of duty, hard work, integrity and honour. Yet she was dumped like rubbish.
Would you do that rather underhand sort of thing, Gunit?
-
Bit of a cowardly attack on another moderator, don't you think, Gunit?
No chance for Eleanor to respond and put her side of the case if she doesn't know about it? If she had erred, no chance to modify things. And after nine years of faithful service, whilst being backed by John most of the time.
What a shock for an octarian lady who had given of herself so heartily
Eleanor is full of duty, hard work, integrity and honour. Yet she was dumped like rubbish.
Would you do that rather underhand sort of thing, Gunit?
I am heartily sick of snide comments being directed at me. I was not involved in any way, shape or form in the incident which led to Eleanor's demotion
-
People can do what they like via PM, but I doubt if action will be taken unless any complaint is valid.
You are a master at responding to my posts without actually referencing the point made. I think this is called “strawman”. Please stop doing it.
-
PMs to John are perfectly legitimate.
Complaining to Mods is totally useless in my experience.
I trust John to make an honest decision, whatever the issue is.
-
I am heartily sick of snide comments being directed at me. I was not involved in any way, shape or form in the incident which led to Eleanor's demotion
Oh dear! Don’t you like being falsely accused? Shouldn’t you just stay silent and take it on the chin like the McCanns should have done?
-
I am heartily sick of snide comments being directed at me. I was not involved in any way, shape or form in the incident which led to Eleanor's demotion
I have sadly learned repeatedly, from past experience, not to entirely trust you
But IF the above is the case, I apologize to you. Soz
Cite please < only joking. 8(>((
-
You are a master at responding to my posts without actually referencing the point made. I think this is called “strawman”. Please stop doing it.
You claimed that PM had been used to "to complain about and discuss others’ behind their backs." I replied that only valid complaints would be acted upon. Which 'point' did I miss?
-
I have sadly learned repeatedly, from past experience, not to entirely trust you
But IF the above is the case, I apologize to you. Soz
Cite please ... only joking. 8(>((
I should think so too. Has someone been spreading rumours via PM about me lol?
-
I should think so too. Has someone been spreading rumours via PM about me lol?
Time you learned to accept apologies graciously, me thinks.
-
You claimed that PM had been used to "to complain about and discuss others’ behind their backs." I replied that only valid complaints would be acted upon. Which 'point' did I miss?
You seem to have serious comprehension issues. You claimed not to understand what was meant by a backdoor route, indeed you claimed you would love to know what it meant. I think you were being obtuse and/or disingenuous nonetheless I supplied the answer which was the point of my post. I made no reference regarding validity or otherwise so why bring it up?
-
Time you learned to accept apologies graciously, me thinks.
She doesn’t do gracious IMO.
-
Time you learned to accept apologies graciously, me thinks.
I do if they're wholehearted; I'm not so keen on qualified apologies wrapped up in insults.
-
You seem to have serious comprehension issues. You claimed not to understand what was meant by a backdoor route, indeed you claimed you would love to know what it meant. I think you were being obtuse and/or disingenuous nonetheless I supplied the answer which was the point of my post. I made no reference regarding validity or otherwise so why bring it up?
You suggested that PMs were being used to 'complain about and discuss others’ behind their backs'. I suspect a lot of PMs do that, but only those sent to forum officials can affect people, and then only if the complaint is considered
valid. That's the only way a 'backdoor route' can affect anyone. PMing forum officials, btw, is a perfectly acceptable way to raise a complaint.
-
You suggested that PMs were being used to 'complain about and discuss others’ behind their backs'. I suspect a lot of PMs do that, but only those sent to forum officials can affect people, and then only if the complaint is considered
valid. That's the only way a 'backdoor route' can affect anyone. PMing forum officials, btw, is a perfectly acceptable way to raise a complaint.
I was explaining to you what a “backdoor route” meant which you claimed not to understand or that it was the product of an over-active imagination. You were imo being rude and obtuse towards Sadie because imo you knew full well what she was referring to. Your post above fails to address that point.
-
I was explaining to you what a “backdoor route” meant which you claimed not to understand or that it was the product of an over-active imagination. You were imo being rude and obtuse towards Sadie because imo you knew full well what she was referring to. Your post above fails to address that point.
It was very kind of you to help Sadie to answer my question. I do wonder how you seemed to know exactly what she was referring to, however. I didn't. Or was it just a lucky guess? Perhaps she'll answer for herself in her own good time.
-
It was very kind of you to help Sadie to answer my question. I do wonder how you seemed to know exactly what she was referring to, however. I didn't. Or was it just a lucky guess? Perhaps she'll answer for herself in her own good time.
Once again, your ability to understand simple English seems to have deserted you.
I initially wrote:
“I expect Sadie means by PM, which enables people to complain about and discuss others’ behind their backs. Were you unaware of this facility.”
Since that post you have repeatedly avoided answering my question, just as you repeatedly avoid answering any of my questions. I can only surmise from this that you find my questions far too challenging to answer honestly.
There is only one “backdoor route” on any forum and that is via PM, unless you think Sadie meant someone opened an actual backdoor to go and meet a member of the moderation team in their home?
What I don’t like are your sneering attempts at mocking Sadie. Bad form for a moderator IMO.
-
Once again, your ability to understand simple English seems to have deserted you.
I initially wrote:
“I expect Sadie means by PM, which enables people to complain about and discuss others’ behind their backs. Were you unaware of this facility.”
Since that post you have repeatedly avoided answering my question, just as you repeatedly avoid answering any of my questions. I can only surmise from this that you find my questions far too challenging to answer honestly.
There is only one “backdoor route” on any forum and that is via PM, unless you think Sadie meant someone opened an actual backdoor to go and meet a member of the moderation team in their home?
What I don’t like are your sneering attempts at mocking Sadie. Bad form for a moderator IMO.
I do answer your questions and if you don't like my answers that's tough. Sadie unfairly accused me of being cowardly and sneaky, for which she apologised, although not wholeheartedly imo.
I think this subject is now closed as far as I'm concerned. I've done nothing to deserve what I see as attacks on my character and I will take further action if it continues.
-
I do answer your questions and if you don't like my answers that's tough. Sadie unfairly accused me of being cowardly and sneaky, for which she apologised, although not wholeheartedly imo.
I think this subject is now closed as far as I'm concerned. I've done nothing to deserve what I see as attacks on my character and I will take further action if it continues.
You didn’t answer my question. You answered another question which I did not ask. You do this frequently. It is very annoying. You’re right. I don’t like it. If you don’t like me pointing this out that’s tough.
-
Oh dear! Don’t you like being falsely accused? Shouldn’t you just stay silent and take it on the chin like the McCanns should have done?
Strawman.
-
Strawman.
At least there's an acknowledgement that I have been falsely accused lol.
-
At least there's an acknowledgement that I have been falsely accused lol.
I know, I've been reading back.
Quite apart from this particular thread being irrevocable hijacked, the forum has descended in to nothing more than a distillation of the premise that Golding posited in Lord of the Flies.....'human nature, free from the constraints of society, draws people away from reason toward savagery'.
Maybe a sweep through with a new broom is in order.
-
I know, I've been reading back.
Quite apart from this particular thread being irrevocable hijacked, the forum has descended in to nothing more than a distillation of the premise that Golding posited in Lord of the Flies.....'human nature, free from the constraints of society, draws people away from reason toward savagery'.
Maybe a sweep through with a new broom is in order.
What an innovative thought that is.
Now that you have caught up with a critique of the forum - I eagerly await the posts from you 😁 which will slurp us out of the morass.
-
I know, I've been reading back.
Quite apart from this particular thread being irrevocable hijacked, the forum has descended in to nothing more than a distillation of the premise that Golding posited in Lord of the Flies.....'human nature, free from the constraints of society, draws people away from reason toward savagery'.
Maybe a sweep through with a new broom is in order.
Well, while we're off topic anyway, Golding was a fascinating author. I had to study The Spire for A Level English Lit. Luckily the comprehension problems I have also been accused of having didn't prevent me from being awarded an A in the exam.
-
John sees every Report. The final decision is always his.
-
Well, while we're off topic anyway, Golding was a fascinating author. I had to study The Spire for A Level English Lit. Luckily the comprehension problems I have also been accused of having didn't prevent me from being awarded an A in the exam.
I believe you deliberately misunderstand my posts. in order to make your own points without making any attempt to address mine. That is why there is no good debate to be had on this forum.
What do you think?
-
There is an appropriate board to discuss moderation etc - here > http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=8404.msg419741#msg419741
-
Please note
Abusive PMs should be reported to Admin or to John who will deal with them appropriately
-
There is an appropriate board to discuss moderation etc - here > http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=8404.msg419741#msg419741
....and yet you've presided over this thread and others for pages and let them slide into incredulity.....and only intervene when I get involved?
-
I believe you deliberately misunderstand my posts. in order to make your own points without making any attempt to address mine. That is why there is no good debate to be had on this forum.
What do you think?
I think you should back off.
-
....and yet you've presided over this thread and others for pages and let them slide into incredulity.....and only intervene when I get involved?
It goes with wearing the seneschal badge, do as I say, in the end it'll manifest itself into the thread topic, who can say when, probably when the case is decided some time in the distant future I'd venture, no update since Sept on the press page meaning its still not at the noteworthy stage, if it ever reaches those dizzy heights is another matter.
-
I think you should back off.
That’s nice.
-
A little off-topic but this judgement by ECHR is due next week. The now-deceased journalist accused judges of violating the secrecy of justice. Coincidentally he is a brother of Rui Rangel, a friend of Amaral & a former judge who was expelled from the bench & currently being tried under Operation Lex for corruption.
Freitas Rangel v. Portugal (no. 78873/13)
The applicant, Emídio Arnaldo Freitas Rangel, now deceased, was a Portuguese national who was
born in 1947 and lived in Lisbon. He was a very well-known journalist.
The case concerns the applicant’s conviction for statements made about the professional bodies for
judges and for public prosecutors at a hearing of a parliamentary committee. He had been convicted
and had to pay 56,000 euros in fines and damages in total.
Relying on Article 10 (freedom of expression) of the European Convention, the applicant complains,
in particular, that his conviction and punishment were in breach of his rights.
-
Another defeat in the ECHR for Portugal relating to their application of Article 10. I think he had highlighted the same issues McCanns had faced at the hands of the Judiciary.
Famous journalist Freitas Rangel’s conviction for statements about associations
of judges and prosecutors breached the European Convention
In today’s Chamber judgment1
in the case of Freitas Rangel v. Portugal (application no. 78873/13)
the European Court of Human Rights held, unanimously, that there had been:
a violation of Article 10 (freedom of expression) of the European Convention on Human Rights.
The case concerned the applicant’s conviction for statements made about the professional bodies
for judges and for public prosecutors at a hearing of a parliamentary committee. In particular, he
had linked the judiciary and the prosecution service to, among other things, interference in politics
and widespread breaches of confidentiality. He had been convicted and had had to pay 56,000
euros in fines and damages in total.
The Court found in particular that the fine and the damages had been wholly disproportionate and
had to have had a chilling effect on political discussion. The domestic courts had failed to give
adequate reasoning for such interference with the applicant’s free speech rights, which had not
been necessary in a democratic society.
Principal facts
The applicant, Emídio Arnaldo Freitas Rangel, was a Portuguese national who was born in 1947 and
lived in Lisbon. He passed away in 2014 and his daughters took up the application in his stead.
Mr Freitas Rangel was a very well-known journalist.
In 2010 he gave evidence at a parliamentary committee on the topic of freedom of expression and
the media in Portugal. Among other wide-ranging testimony, he stated as follows:
“… There is no democracy without quality journalism. However, the situation has got worse. This
circle has recently seen the entry – and this is the trend [modismo] of modern times – of the
professional associations of judges and public prosecutors. These are two hubs managing
information relating to judicial cases [duas centrais de gestão de informação processual], which is
achieved through close ties with journalists. They obtain documents concerning judicial cases for
journalists to publish, exchange these documents at cafés, in the open; … breach[ing] the duty of
judicial confidentiality [segredo de justiça], they really will share the documents. This is not going to
end well, Mr President, honourable members of parliament, if we do not return to a time with rules
preventing the judiciary from engaging in politics.”
Later, in response to a question from a journalist, he stated the following:
“Where does the material covered by judicial confidentiality come from? Can it only come from the
justice system itself? …, what I have seen is an extensive and broad political intervention with
negative consequences … They try to limit the decisions of the Attorney-General [Procurador Geral
da República] and [to influence] public opinion, and they have privileged relationships with
journalists to whom, from time to time, they pass on documents dealing with various topics.”
[
1. Under Articles 43 and 44 of the Convention, this Chamber judgment is not final. During the three-month period following its delivery,
any party may request that the case be referred to the Grand Chamber of the Court. If such a request is made, a panel of five judges
considers whether the case deserves further examination. In that event, the Grand Chamber will hear the case and deliver a final
judgment. If the referral request is refused, the Chamber judgment will become final on that day.
Once a judgment becomes final, it is transmitted to the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe for supervision of its execution.}
Further information about the execution process can be found here: www.coe.int/t/dghl/monitoring/execution.
2
Mr Freitas Rangel later made further statements before other bodies and in the press confirming
what he had said before the committee.
In mid-2010 the Professional Association of Judges (Associação Sindical de Juízes Portugueses – “the
ASJP”) and the Professional Association of Public Prosecutors (Sindicato dos Magistrados do
Ministério Público – “the SMMP”) separately lodged criminal complaints against Mr Freitas Rangel
for “insulting a legal entity” (ofensa a pessoa colectiva). He was convicted in 2012 on two counts of
insulting a legal entity by the Lisbon Criminal Court, ordered to pay damages of 50,000 euros (EUR)
to each plaintiff and fined EUR 6,000. The court reasoned that it was sufficient for the perpetrator to
have acted with general criminal intent (dolo genérico), even just to attribute falsehoods, or even
offensive value judgments, to the legal entities in question. That judgment was broadly upheld on
appeal by the Lisbon Court of Appeal, with the damages being lowered to EUR 10,000 to each
plaintiff.
The two professional associations appealed to the Supreme Court, complaining about the amount
awarded. The Supreme Court found partly in their favour and increased the damages to EUR 25,000
each, citing the damage to reputation caused.
The damages were paid to the ASJP in full. However, the unpaid balance of the damages to the
SMMP were transferred to Mr Freitas Rangel’s estate following his death.
Complaints, procedure and composition of the Court
Relying on Article 10 (freedom of expression) of the European Convention, the applicant
complained, in particular, that his conviction and punishment had been in breach of his right to
freedom of expression.
The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 5 December 2013.
Judgment was given by a Chamber of seven judges, composed as follows:
Yonko Grozev (Bulgaria), President,
Tim Eicke (the United Kingdom),
Faris Vehabović (Bosnia and Herzegovina),
Gabriele Kucsko-Stadlmayer (Austria),
Pere Pastor Vilanova (Andorra),
Jolien Schukking (the Netherlands),
Ana Maria Guerra Martins (Portugal),
and also Andrea Tamietti, Section Registrar.
Decision of the Court
Firstly, the Court noted that the ASJP and the SMMP were reputable professional associations which
are frequently invited to present their views before Parliament on matters connected to the
functioning of justice.
The Court considered that the issues about which the applicant had spoken before the
parliamentary committee – the sharing of confidential information with journalists to advance
political objectives – was of interest to the public. Most of the statements had been the applicant’s
opinions, rather than statements of fact. While the wording may have been unfortunate, the
comments could be interpreted as an illustration of a broader societal critique regarding the
inappropriate intervention of the judiciary as a whole in politics and the media, which was a subject
of public interest and which he had believed to be true. Furthermore, political speech was afforded
special protection in the Court’s case-law.
3
The Court reiterated that the protection of the reputation of a legal entity did not have the same
strength as the protection of the reputation or rights of individuals.
The Court observed that the reasoning of the appellate court had been based solely on the rights of
the professional associations, rather than balancing their rights with those of the applicant. The
Court held that the fine and the damages had been wholly disproportionate and had to have had a
chilling effect on political discussion.
Overall, the Court found that the domestic courts had failed to give adequate reasoning for their
interference with the applicant’s free-speech rights, concluding that the interference had not been
necessary in a democratic society.
There had been a violation of Article 10 of the Convention.
Just satisfaction (Article 41)
The Court held that Portugal was to pay the applicant’s estate 31,500 euros (EUR) in respect of
pecuniary damage, and EUR 19,874.23 in respect of costs and expenses.
The judgment is available only in English.
-
Another defeat in the ECHR for Portugal relating to their application of Article 10. I think he had highlighted the same issues McCanns had faced at the hands of the Judiciary.
Famous journalist Freitas Rangel’s conviction for statements about associations
of judges and prosecutors breached the European Convention
In today’s Chamber judgment1
in the case of Freitas Rangel v. Portugal (application no. 78873/13)
the European Court of Human Rights held, unanimously, that there had been:
a violation of Article 10 (freedom of expression) of the European Convention on Human Rights.
The case concerned the applicant’s conviction for statements made about the professional bodies
for judges and for public prosecutors at a hearing of a parliamentary committee. In particular, he
had linked the judiciary and the prosecution service to, among other things, interference in politics
and widespread breaches of confidentiality. He had been convicted and had had to pay 56,000
euros in fines and damages in total.
The Court found in particular that the fine and the damages had been wholly disproportionate and
had to have had a chilling effect on political discussion. The domestic courts had failed to give
adequate reasoning for such interference with the applicant’s free speech rights, which had not
been necessary in a democratic society.
Principal facts
The applicant, Emídio Arnaldo Freitas Rangel, was a Portuguese national who was born in 1947 and
lived in Lisbon. He passed away in 2014 and his daughters took up the application in his stead.
Mr Freitas Rangel was a very well-known journalist.
In 2010 he gave evidence at a parliamentary committee on the topic of freedom of expression and
the media in Portugal. Among other wide-ranging testimony, he stated as follows:
“… There is no democracy without quality journalism. However, the situation has got worse. This
circle has recently seen the entry – and this is the trend [modismo] of modern times – of the
professional associations of judges and public prosecutors. These are two hubs managing
information relating to judicial cases [duas centrais de gestão de informação processual], which is
achieved through close ties with journalists. They obtain documents concerning judicial cases for
journalists to publish, exchange these documents at cafés, in the open; … breach[ing] the duty of
judicial confidentiality [segredo de justiça], they really will share the documents. This is not going to
end well, Mr President, honourable members of parliament, if we do not return to a time with rules
preventing the judiciary from engaging in politics.”
Later, in response to a question from a journalist, he stated the following:
“Where does the material covered by judicial confidentiality come from? Can it only come from the
justice system itself? …, what I have seen is an extensive and broad political intervention with
negative consequences … They try to limit the decisions of the Attorney-General [Procurador Geral
da República] and [to influence] public opinion, and they have privileged relationships with
journalists to whom, from time to time, they pass on documents dealing with various topics.”
[
1. Under Articles 43 and 44 of the Convention, this Chamber judgment is not final. During the three-month period following its delivery,
any party may request that the case be referred to the Grand Chamber of the Court. If such a request is made, a panel of five judges
considers whether the case deserves further examination. In that event, the Grand Chamber will hear the case and deliver a final
judgment. If the referral request is refused, the Chamber judgment will become final on that day.
Once a judgment becomes final, it is transmitted to the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe for supervision of its execution.}
Further information about the execution process can be found here: www.coe.int/t/dghl/monitoring/execution.
2
Mr Freitas Rangel later made further statements before other bodies and in the press confirming
what he had said before the committee.
In mid-2010 the Professional Association of Judges (Associação Sindical de Juízes Portugueses – “the
ASJP”) and the Professional Association of Public Prosecutors (Sindicato dos Magistrados do
Ministério Público – “the SMMP”) separately lodged criminal complaints against Mr Freitas Rangel
for “insulting a legal entity” (ofensa a pessoa colectiva). He was convicted in 2012 on two counts of
insulting a legal entity by the Lisbon Criminal Court, ordered to pay damages of 50,000 euros (EUR)
to each plaintiff and fined EUR 6,000. The court reasoned that it was sufficient for the perpetrator to
have acted with general criminal intent (dolo genérico), even just to attribute falsehoods, or even
offensive value judgments, to the legal entities in question. That judgment was broadly upheld on
appeal by the Lisbon Court of Appeal, with the damages being lowered to EUR 10,000 to each
plaintiff.
The two professional associations appealed to the Supreme Court, complaining about the amount
awarded. The Supreme Court found partly in their favour and increased the damages to EUR 25,000
each, citing the damage to reputation caused.
The damages were paid to the ASJP in full. However, the unpaid balance of the damages to the
SMMP were transferred to Mr Freitas Rangel’s estate following his death.
Complaints, procedure and composition of the Court
Relying on Article 10 (freedom of expression) of the European Convention, the applicant
complained, in particular, that his conviction and punishment had been in breach of his right to
freedom of expression.
The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 5 December 2013.
Judgment was given by a Chamber of seven judges, composed as follows:
Yonko Grozev (Bulgaria), President,
Tim Eicke (the United Kingdom),
Faris Vehabović (Bosnia and Herzegovina),
Gabriele Kucsko-Stadlmayer (Austria),
Pere Pastor Vilanova (Andorra),
Jolien Schukking (the Netherlands),
Ana Maria Guerra Martins (Portugal),
and also Andrea Tamietti, Section Registrar.
Decision of the Court
Firstly, the Court noted that the ASJP and the SMMP were reputable professional associations which
are frequently invited to present their views before Parliament on matters connected to the
functioning of justice.
The Court considered that the issues about which the applicant had spoken before the
parliamentary committee – the sharing of confidential information with journalists to advance
political objectives – was of interest to the public. Most of the statements had been the applicant’s
opinions, rather than statements of fact. While the wording may have been unfortunate, the
comments could be interpreted as an illustration of a broader societal critique regarding the
inappropriate intervention of the judiciary as a whole in politics and the media, which was a subject
of public interest and which he had believed to be true. Furthermore, political speech was afforded
special protection in the Court’s case-law.
3
The Court reiterated that the protection of the reputation of a legal entity did not have the same
strength as the protection of the reputation or rights of individuals.
The Court observed that the reasoning of the appellate court had been based solely on the rights of
the professional associations, rather than balancing their rights with those of the applicant. The
Court held that the fine and the damages had been wholly disproportionate and had to have had a
chilling effect on political discussion.
Overall, the Court found that the domestic courts had failed to give adequate reasoning for their
interference with the applicant’s free-speech rights, concluding that the interference had not been
necessary in a democratic society.
There had been a violation of Article 10 of the Convention.
Just satisfaction (Article 41)
The Court held that Portugal was to pay the applicant’s estate 31,500 euros (EUR) in respect of
pecuniary damage, and EUR 19,874.23 in respect of costs and expenses.
The judgment is available only in English.
This is good news for Amaral then, if I am reading this correctly?
-
And yet another good find.
-
This is good news for Amaral then, if I am reading this correctly?
It isn't...
-
It isn't...
OK, I haven't understood it properly then.
-
OK, I haven't understood it properly then.
It is a bit convoluted.
-
It is a bit convoluted.
I think i'm just thick.
-
Perhaps the Learned dentist would care to explain.
-
Perhaps the Learned dentist would care to explain.
What's the point... You wouldnt accept what I said
I'll give you a starter.. What did his accusations consist of
-
What's the point... You wouldnt accept what I said
I'll give you a starter.. What did his accusations consist of
Others might .Think of the supporters 8(0(*
I'm happy to receive your wisdom even if I subsequently reject it
-
Others might .Think of the supporters 8(0(*
I'm happy to receive your wisdom even if I subsequently reject it
Then the first thing is to look what he was originally fined for
-
I don't think it's particularly relevant to the McCsnn csse aoart from the SC getting things wrong..
And as I recall the SC mentioned in the McCann case thst they had been criticized by the ECHR for constraints on article 10 and that's one if the reasons they found for amaral
-
It isn't...
Doesn't effect the individual, read what it says, the state off Portugal shall pay,
The Court held that Portugal was to pay the applicant’s estate 31,500 euros (EUR) in respect of
pecuniary damage, and EUR 19,874.23 in respect of costs and expenses.
-
The case posted by misty was one on the noteworthy pending cases, meaning there's a place free, oh the excitement is unbearable.
-
I don't think it's particularly relevant to the McCsnn csse aoart from the SC getting things wrong..
And as I recall the SC mentioned in the McCann case thst they had been criticized by the ECHR for constraints on article 10 and that's one if the reasons they found for amaral
I notice that the ECHR had no trouble with an opinion being expressed;
"Most of the statements had been the applicant’s opinions, rather than statements of fact. While the wording may have been unfortunate, the comments could be interpreted as an illustration of a broader societal critique regarding the inappropriate intervention of the judiciary as a whole in politics and the media, which was a subject
of public interest and which he had believed to be true."
In this case his opinions seem to have been acceptable because he believed them to be true.
-
I notice that the ECHR had no trouble with an opinion being expressed;
"Most of the statements had been the applicant’s opinions, rather than statements of fact. While the wording may have been unfortunate, the comments could be interpreted as an illustration of a broader societal critique regarding the inappropriate intervention of the judiciary as a whole in politics and the media, which was a subject
of public interest and which he had believed to be true."
In this case his opinions seem to have been acceptable because he believed them to be true.
Was anyones personal reputation attacked.. Was anyone accused of committing a criminal offence
These are the sort of things you need to look at
-
Was anyones personal reputation attacked.. Was anyone accused of committing a criminal offence
These are the sort of things you need to look at
Yes indeed, breaching judicial secrecy;
"They obtain documents concerning judicial cases for journalists to publish, exchange these documents at cafés, in the open; … breach[ing] the duty of judicial confidentiality [segredo de justiça], they really will share the documents."
-
Yes indeed, breaching judicial secrecy;
"They obtain documents concerning judicial cases for journalists to publish, exchange these documents at cafés, in the open; … breach[ing] the duty of judicial confidentiality [segredo de justiça], they really will share the documents."
Did you read my question... Who's personal reputation was attacked
-
Did you read my question... Who's personal reputation was attacked
The ASJP and the SMMP, which are public bodies. This was a criminal case, not a civil one.
In mid-2010 the Professional Association of Judges (Associação Sindical de Juízes Portugueses – “the
ASJP”) and the Professional Association of Public Prosecutors (Sindicato dos Magistrados do
Ministério Público – “the SMMP”) separately lodged criminal complaints against Mr Freitas Rangel
for “insulting a legal entity”
-
The ASJP and the SMMP, which are public bodies. This was a criminal case, not a civil one.
In mid-2010 the Professional Association of Judges (Associação Sindical de Juízes Portugueses – “the
ASJP”) and the Professional Association of Public Prosecutors (Sindicato dos Magistrados do
Ministério Público – “the SMMP”) separately lodged criminal complaints against Mr Freitas Rangel
for “insulting a legal entity”
I understand it's a criminal case... How bizarre. Insulting a legal entity... So if a Portuguese journalist said the PJ was institutionally racist... He could expect to be convicted of a criminal offence. No wonder the ECHR found against Portugal..
He did not insult any individual.. That would have been totally different. A legal entity has no rights under article 8..
The mccanns do
-
I notice that the ECHR had no trouble with an opinion being expressed;
"Most of the statements had been the applicant’s opinions, rather than statements of fact. While the wording may have been unfortunate, the comments could be interpreted as an illustration of a broader societal critique regarding the inappropriate intervention of the judiciary as a whole in politics and the media, which was a subject
of public interest and which he had believed to be true."
In this case his opinions seem to have been acceptable because he believed them to be true.
Rangel was expressing his opinion on a public body, rather than an individual who has a greater right to privacy/protection from defamation. That he should have been fined for expressing views akin to UK press reporting stories about institutional racism within the Met. Police demonstrates Portugal's attitude towards suppression of free speech when those maligned are in public office/positions of authority. This ECHR decision imo once again shows that it's not what you are but who you are when it comes to appeals in the Supreme Court.
-
Rangel was expressing his opinion on a public body, rather than an individual who has a greater right to privacy/protection from defamation. That he should have been fined for expressing views akin to UK press reporting stories about institutional racism within the Met. Police demonstrates Portugal's attitude towards suppression of free speech when those maligned are in public office/positions of authority. This ECHR decision imo once again shows that it's not what you are but who you are when it comes to appeals in the Supreme Court.
The cases are very different. Defaming an individual is a civil matter but insulting a public body is a criminal matter. Most European countries have a similar law and offenders can be jailed.
-
Rangel was expressing his opinion on a public body, rather than an individual who has a greater right to privacy/protection from defamation. That he should have been fined for expressing views akin to UK press reporting stories about institutional racism within the Met. Police demonstrates Portugal's attitude towards suppression of free speech when those maligned are in public office/positions of authority. This ECHR decision imo once again shows that it's not what you are but who you are when it comes to appeals in the Supreme Court.
Big difference, that was said as a result of an inquiry and the head of that released papers into the public domain.
-
The cases are very different. Defaming an individual is a civil matter but insulting a public body is a criminal matter. Most European countries have a similar law and offenders can be jailed.
The important point is that the SC of Portugal made, a mistake in it's, judgement
-
The important point is that the SC of Portugal made, a mistake in it's, judgement
Very True. I just wish The ECHR would get a move on. Or are they bogged down with cases from Portugal?
-
The important point is that the SC of Portugal made, a mistake in it's, judgement
Only one judgement interests me. No result on that one as yet.
-
Very True. I just wish The ECHR would get a move on. Or are they bogged down with cases from Portugal?
The case being talked about was communicated in 2017, meaning 5 yrs on, just take that as a starter then the McCann/Healey jobby was communicated in 2021, awhile to wait yet.
-
Has The McCann Complaint been thrown out yet? Or are we now accepting that there is a case?
-
Only one judgement interests me. No result on that one as yet.
If you looked at other cases as I've done I think you would see that the SC were wrong in the McCann case too
-
Has The McCann Complaint been thrown out yet? Or are we now accepting that there is a case?
Seems like a state of limbo, reading the gumpf.
-
The case being talked about was communicated in 2017, meaning 5 yrs on, just take that as a starter then the McCann/Healey jobby was communicated in 2021, awhile to wait yet.
It's a good job that I intend to live long and prosper.
-
It's a good job that I intend to live long and prosper.
Me three.
-
If you looked at other cases as I've done I think you would see that the SC were wrong in the McCann case too
Although not entirely wrong in the Case of The First Instance. Younger Judges are up and coming which gives some hope for Portugal.
At least The ECHR will have noted that decision.
-
Although not entirely wrong in the Case of The First Instance. Younger Judges are up and coming which gives some hope for Portugal.
At least The ECHR will have noted that decision.
Totally agree
-
Me three.
Yep. And a few others. Who'd a thought it fifteen years ago? But I haven't half learned a lot. If only to add to my already vast cache of useless information.
-
Totally agree
I have wondered if The ECHR Judges actually read The Book, although probably not. It can be very difficult for ordinary people to separate the wheat from the chaff when so much of it is irrelevant. As has been frequently displayed on this Forum.
I had some discourse in Courts of Law during my hay days which first brought this to my attention. But I never lost one single case.
-
I thought you already had. 8((()*/
Now that is funny. I nearly died laughing.
I am only 82 you know. And brain still working. Well, most of the time.
Comments like this are what gives me hope for you.
-
If you looked at other cases as I've done I think you would see that the SC were wrong in the McCann case too
We shall see, one day.
-
We shall see, one day.
An accurate post for once
-
The cases are very different. Defaming an individual is a civil matter but insulting a public body is a criminal matter. Most European countries have a similar law and offenders can be jailed.
Yes, I agree in hindsight and my comparison was poor in choice. In UK Government bodies cannot sue anyone for defamation due to the Derbyshire Principle. However, that doesn't take away the fact that SCP failed to recognise the journalist had greater rights to freedom of speech because he was writing about matters which were in the public interest (not to be confused with the interest of the public) about a government body with less protection under Article 8.
-
Yes, I agree in hindsight and my comparison was poor in choice. In UK Government bodies cannot sue anyone for defamation due to the Derbyshire Principle. However, that doesn't take away the fact that SCP failed to recognise the journalist had greater rights to freedom of speech because he was writing about matters which were in the public interest (not to be confused with the interest of the public) about a government body with less protection under Article 8.
Another good comment.
-
Poster are reminded to stay on topic and keep responses relative to the discussion in hand.
-
A few stats from last year for Portugal, 5 cases went to the echr, 3 had violations, 2 didn't , so 60-40 split .
https://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/Stats_violation_2021_ENG.pdf
-
Updated Jan 22 shows that McCann /Healey V Portugal has still not reached the dizzy heights of noteworthy pending, those that are were communicated in 2017, 5 yr's is a standard perchance ? from communication to hearing.
-
Was anyones personal reputation attacked.. Was anyone accused of committing a criminal offence
These are the sort of things you need to look at
The reputation of neglecting their daughter- leaving her to all sorts of danger.
Being a suspect in a criminal case?
Yes, been looked at...
-
The Sun is once again reporting that;
"MADELEINE McCann’s parents risk losing a large chunk of funds set aside to continue the search for her — to a former cop...
A source close to the family said: “If Gerry and Kate lose their appeal, there will be damages to pay and a big legal costs bill."
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/18286694/madeleine-mccann-search-fund-former-cop/
There's been no report of Amaral being awarded damages by any court.
-
The Sun is once again reporting that;
"MADELEINE McCann’s parents risk losing a large chunk of funds set aside to continue the search for her — to a former cop...
A source close to the family said: “If Gerry and Kate lose their appeal, there will be damages to pay and a big legal costs bill."
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/18286694/madeleine-mccann-search-fund-former-cop/
There's been no report of Amaral being awarded damages by any court.
One does have to wonder why the Editor allows such rubbish to be printed.
There must be better ways of boosting sales.
-
Have the Fund accounts just been filed? That would possibly explain the media stories. I’m sure our resident Fund correspondent will fill us in shortly….
-
One does have to wonder why the Editor allows such rubbish to be printed.
There must be better ways of boosting sales.
Not sure of sales, but with it on line now is it advertising revenue.
-
One does have to wonder why the Editor allows such rubbish to be printed.
There must be better ways of boosting sales.
From the article, its a bit like gambling, only bet with which you can afford to lose .
A source close to the family said: “If Gerry and Kate lose their appeal, there will be damages to pay and a big legal costs bill.
-
From the article, its a bit like gambling, only bet with which you can afford to lose .
A source close to the family said: “If Gerry and Kate lose their appeal, there will be damages to pay and a big legal costs bill.
Shame that there isn't a word of truth in that.
-
Shame that there isn't a word of truth in that.
What do you know about it?
-
Shame that there isn't a word of truth in that.
It's something that keeps being said, so where does it originate? From the McCanns, their friends or journalists misunderstanding the processes?
We know that journalists haven't been very good at understanding what was going on. They have given people the impression that the application to the ECHR involved Amaral when it didn't. Maybe they think that the ECHR can order the McCanns to pay him damages, which, of course it can't. Any legal fees will be negotiated between the McCanns and their lawyers, although the ECHR can, I think, order the McCanns to pay the state of Portugal's legal costs if they lose the case.
-
It's something that keeps being said, so where does it originate? From the McCanns, their friends or journalists misunderstanding the processes?
We know that journalists haven't been very good at understanding what was going on. They have given people the impression that the application to the ECHR involved Amaral when it didn't. Maybe they think that the ECHR can order the McCanns to pay him damages, which, of course it can't. Any legal fees will be negotiated between the McCanns and their lawyers, although the ECHR can, I think, order the McCanns to pay the state of Portugal's legal costs if they lose the case.
If the 'source close to the family' has been quoted correctly, then it's not a case journalists not understanding, but of not checking the accuracy and validity of the statements used.
-
It's something that keeps being said, so where does it originate? From the McCanns, their friends or journalists misunderstanding the processes?
We know that journalists haven't been very good at understanding what was going on. They have given people the impression that the application to the ECHR involved Amaral when it didn't. Maybe they think that the ECHR can order the McCanns to pay him damages, which, of course it can't. Any legal fees will be negotiated between the McCanns and their lawyers, although the ECHR can, I think, order the McCanns to pay the state of Portugal's legal costs if they lose the case.
How much have the McCanns hadto pay Amaral to date, to cover his legal fees and loss of earnings from his book, tv programme etc?
-
How much have the McCanns hadto pay Amaral to date, to cover his legal fees and loss of earnings from his book, tv programme etc?
The Supreme Court ordered them to pay the costs of Amaral, the publisher Guerra & Paz, Editores SA, the audiovisual production company Valentim de Carvalho-Filmes e Audiovisuais SA and the TV Channel TVI-Televisão Independente. The amounts have been kept secret. Loss of earnings wasn't mentioned.
-
The Supreme Court ordered them to pay the costs of Amaral, the publisher Guerra & Paz, Editores SA, the audiovisual production company Valentim de Carvalho-Filmes e Audiovisuais SA and the TV Channel TVI-Televisão Independente. The amounts have been kept secret. Loss of earnings wasn't mentioned.
So these amounts weren’t paid out of the fund then?
-
So these amounts weren’t paid out of the fund then?
I have no idea what's been paid out of the Fund.
-
I have no idea what's been paid out of the Fund.
Quite, the accounts are not very forthcoming when it comes to detail.
-
I have no idea what's been paid out of the Fund.
Are there no debits in the accounts?
-
Are there no debits in the accounts?
Just Assets and Liabilities.
-
Just Assets and Liabilities.
So year on year since the trial there have been no large decreases in the cash reserves? Where ‘s the resident fund expert to tell us more?
-
So year on year since the trial there have been no large decreases in the cash reserves? Where ‘s the resident fund expert to tell us more?
No. There are some amounts relating to Isobel Duarte's cost.
2016-2017 @ £50,000
2019-2020 @ £ 4,000
No sums are identified as being paid to the Portuguese Courts or to those people they sued.
-
There is a provision for liabilities of £26,834 showing for the year end 31/3/21. This sounds about the right amount to cover Amaral's legal costs should McCanns be unsuccessful in ECHR.
-
There is a provision for liabilities of £26,834 showing for the year end 31/3/21. This sounds about the right amount to cover Amaral's legal costs should McCanns be unsuccessful in ECHR.
It sounds like a low figure to pay the costs of four defendants.
-
It sounds like a low figure to pay the costs of four defendants.
Perhaps they haven’t had to pay full costs yet.
-
Perhaps they haven’t had to pay full costs yet.
Maybe they paid that debt themselves.
-
Maybe they paid that debt themselves.
Why would they when they had the "fraudulent fund" at their disposal and had already used it to pay off some legal fees? It doesn't make sense does it?
-
Why would they when they had the "fraudulent fund" at their disposal and had already used it to pay off some legal fees? It doesn't make sense does it?
Quite.
-
Maybe they paid that debt themselves.
You can not be serious (in the manner of John McEnroe) @)(++(*
-
Quite.
Quite what?
-
Perhaps they haven’t had to pay full costs yet.
Doesn't the ECHR say that all domestic remedies have to be sorted first .
-
Doesn't the ECHR say that all domestic remedies have to be sorted first .
Does that mean paying all damages and legal costs owing first before you can proceed to the ECHR? I have no idea.
-
Does that mean paying all damages and legal costs owing first before you can proceed to the ECHR? I have no idea.
Likewise .
-
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10797661/Madeleine-McCanns-parents-await-decision-legal-battle-cop-blamed-disappearance.html?adobe_mc=TS%3D1652117458
-
Is a ruling the same as a judgement ?
-
Is a ruling the same as a judgement ?
yes.
-
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10797661/Madeleine-McCanns-parents-await-decision-legal-battle-cop-blamed-disappearance.html?adobe_mc=TS%3D1652117458
Well done, Nick Pisa!
"Technically the case being considered by the court in Strasbourg is against Portugal and Portuguese justice, and not Amaral himself."
Maybe that's because'technically' only states and not individuals can be taken to the ECHR?
It seems an out of court settlement hasn't been achieved - allegedly.
-
Well done, Nick Pisa!
"Technically the case being considered by the court in Strasbourg is against Portugal and Portuguese justice, and not Amaral himself."
Maybe that's because'technically' only states and not individuals can be taken to the ECHR?
It seems an out of court settlement hasn't been achieved - allegedly.
Yet.
It is against a Court Judgement which was in favour of Amaral.
So don't jump the gun.
-
Yet.
It is against a Court Judgement which was in favour of Amaral.
So don't jump the gun.
All appeals have been heard and dismissed, so don't hold your breath.
-
All appeals have been heard and dismissed, so don't hold your breath.
That's why it's gone to the ECHR
-
It will be a monumental embarrassment for Portugal and Amaral if the McCanns win
-
All appeals have been heard and dismissed, so don't hold your breath.
Oh. Have The ECHR dismissed this claim? Could I have a Cite for this?
-
Ah. I see. This claim has not been dismissed. Fibbing again then.
You didn't actually believe that Portugal gets to decide, did you?
Don't hold your breath.
-
Ah. I see. This claim has not been dismissed. Fibbing again then.
You didn't actually believe that Portugal gets to decide, did you?
Don't hold your breath.
Portugal has decided in the case the McCanns brought against Amaral. The case the McCanns brought against Portugal is under consideration at the ECHR. The two cases are related, but not connected.
-
Portugal has decided in the case the McCanns brought against Amaral. The case the McCanns brought against Portugal is under consideration at the ECHR. The two cases are related, but not connected.
It's possible the original case could be reheard after a favourable verdict for the McCanns... So the Portuguese case against amaral may not be over
-
Portugal has decided in the case the McCanns brought against Amaral. The case the McCanns brought against Portugal is under consideration at the ECHR. The two cases are related, but not connected.
There would have been No Case but for Amaral. In which case they are connected. So let's not be silly about this.
As it is, I understand perfectly what the dispute is all about, but apparently you don't and I don't have the time or the patience to explain.
-
It's possible the original case could be reheard after a favourable verdict for the McCanns... So the Portuguese case against amaral may not be over
Will this actually matter do you think? Presuming that The McCanns win. A Win would be fine by me.
-
Having just read back and having nothing better to do. Gunit's Comments are a gross misrepresentation of what is going on with The ECHR.
Is this acceptable?
Gunit has been rude to me on more than one occasion today.
Is this acceptable?
-
Having just read back and having nothing better to do. Gunit's Comments are a gross misrepresentation of what is going on with The ECHR.
Is this acceptable?
Gunit has been rude to me on more than one occasion today.
Is this acceptable?
My comments on the ECHR are my opinion just as yours are and just as valid as anyone else's, so are acceptable.
Did you notice your nasty accusations and threats to me? Probably not.
-
Too much going on for me at the moment, with nothing happening.
But I would just like to say that The Judge of The First Instance probably got it right when she said that Amaral used his flawed knowledge of The Investigation, which he should not have been allowed to do.
This at least will be considered by The ECHR. At least I do hope so.
-
The country profile data has been updated, its still not reached the dizzy heights of Noteworthy pending cases.
https://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/CP_Portugal_ENG.pdf
-
The Court dealt with 288 applications concerning Portugal in 2021, of which 283 were declared
inadmissible or struck out. It delivered 5 judgments (concerning 5 applications), 3 of which
found at least one violation of the European Convention on Human Rights
That's a high rate of failure, though presumably they all thought they had a valid case.
-
The Court dealt with 288 applications concerning Portugal in 2021, of which 283 were declared
inadmissible or struck out. It delivered 5 judgments (concerning 5 applications), 3 of which
found at least one violation of the European Convention on Human Rights
That's a high rate of failure, though presumably they all thought they had a valid case.
Your statistic analysis of the figures is poor.
For the cases going to Judgement.... As the McCanns seems to be there's a 60% success rate
-
Your statistic analysis of the figures is poor.
For the cases going to Judgement.... As the McCanns seems to be there's a 60% success rate
Is it going to judgement or is that just your opinion ?
-
Is it going to judgement or is that just your opinion ?
Its going to judgement
-
Its going to judgement
Cite ?
-
Cite ?
its no longer necessarry to put ...IMO....or provide a cite. have alook at some recent posts
-
Perhaps we might try getting back to IMOs and Cites couple with Please would be nice.
-
Perhaps we might try getting back to IMOs and Cites couple with Please would be nice.
Yes, I realised afterwards. that it sounded a bit short. Sorry about that
-
Yes, I realised afterwards. that it sounded a bit short. Sorry about that
Thanks for having the good grace to apologise.
-
So what's new in the McCann v Portugal case at the ECHR?
Any updates or has it been quietly dropped?
-
So what's new in the McCann v Portugal case at the ECHR?
Any updates or has it been quietly dropped?
Oxymoron. If it had been "quietly dropped" then we would all know about it.
-
So what's new in the McCann v Portugal case at the ECHR?
Any updates or has it been quietly dropped?
Yes, it’s been quietly dropped, shhhh, don’t tell anyone else.
-
So what's new in the McCann v Portugal case at the ECHR?
Any updates or has it been quietly dropped?
Sorry John but if you knew anything about the ECHR you would know cases can't be quietly dropped and you would know the McCannd have a very strong case based on previous case law.
What makes you think the mccanns would want to drop it
-
Sorry John but if you knew anything about the ECHR you would know cases can't be quietly dropped and you would know the McCannd have a very strong case based on previous case law.
What makes you think the mccanns would want to drop it
tbh I think John’s comment was simply him taking the piss.
-
tbh I think John’s comment was simply him taking the piss.
I'm aware of that so in response to his post he won't mind me saying it shows he knows b*****r all about the ECHR case
-
Next week ?
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11215227/Madeleine-McCanns-parents-finally-Tuesday-won-14-YEAR-libel-battle.html
EXCLUSIVE: Madeleine McCann’s parents will finally find out on Tuesday if they have won 14-YEAR libel battle against cop who suggested they were to blame for the girl’s disappearance
-
Tuesday 20 September 2022
McCann and Healy v. Portugal (no. 57195/17)
The applicants, Gerald Patrick McCann and Kate Marie Healy, are British nationals, born in 1968.
They live in Leicestershire, in the United Kingdom.
The case concerns statements made by Mr Gonçalo Amaral – a former detective inspector – in a
book, a documentary adapted from that book and a newspaper interview about the applicants’
alleged involvement in the disappearance of their daughter, Madeleine McCann, who went missing
on 3 May 2007 in southern Portugal.
Relying on Articles 6 §§ 1 and 2 (right to a fair hearing), 8 (right to respect for private and family life)
and 10 (freedom of expression) of the Convention, the applicants allege that those statements
damaged their reputation, their good name and their right to be presumed innocent, and complain
that they were unable to obtain redress before the domestic civil courts. They also argue that the
reasoning in decisions issued by the Supreme Court on 31 January and 21 March 2017, at the close
of an action for damages brought by them, breached their right to be presumed innocent.
-
Tuesday 20 September 2022
McCann and Healy v. Portugal (no. 57195/17)
The applicants, Gerald Patrick McCann and Kate Marie Healy, are British nationals, born in 1968.
They live in Leicestershire, in the United Kingdom.
The case concerns statements made by Mr Gonçalo Amaral – a former detective inspector – in a
book, a documentary adapted from that book and a newspaper interview about the applicants’
alleged involvement in the disappearance of their daughter, Madeleine McCann, who went missing
on 3 May 2007 in southern Portugal.
Relying on Articles 6 §§ 1 and 2 (right to a fair hearing), 8 (right to respect for private and family life)
and 10 (freedom of expression) of the Convention, the applicants allege that those statements
damaged their reputation, their good name and their right to be presumed innocent, and complain
that they were unable to obtain redress before the domestic civil courts. They also argue that the
reasoning in decisions issued by the Supreme Court on 31 January and 21 March 2017, at the close
of an action for damages brought by them, breached their right to be presumed innocent.
interesting....whilst sceptics were saying it would be found inadmissible I and others ..Eleanor particularly.....predicted the exact grounds the appeal would be based on
-
interesting....whilst sceptics were saying it would be found inadmissible I and others ..Eleanor particularly.....predicted the exact grounds the appeal would be based on
Obviously The Case has been considered.
-
interesting....whilst sceptics were saying it would be found inadmissible I and others ..Eleanor particularly.....predicted the exact grounds the appeal would be based on
IMO seems DM got the wrong end of the stick...as usual
-
IMO seems DM got the wrong end of the stick...as usual
I've said all along the Mcs have a very strong case and would win..gunit said they would lose..
We will find out soon whos right
-
IMO seems DM got the wrong end of the stick...as usual
No they haven't.
-
IMO seems DM got the wrong end of the stick...as usual
Nope. I am afraid it seems it is you who have got the wrong end of the stick. It looks very much as though the Daily Mail is merely reporting when the court in Strasbourg will deal with
"McCann and Healy v. Portugal (no. 57195/17)"
"Tuesday 20 September 2022
McCann and Healy v. Portugal (no. 57195/17)
The applicants, Gerald Patrick McCann and Kate Marie Healy, are British nationals, born in 1968.
They live in Leicestershire, in the United Kingdom.
The case concerns statements made by Mr Gonçalo Amaral – a former detective inspector – in a book, a documentary adapted from that book and a newspaper interview about the applicants’ alleged involvement in the disappearance of their daughter, Madeleine McCann, who went missing on 3 May 2007 in southern Portugal.
Relying on Articles 6 §§ 1 and 2 (right to a fair hearing),
8 (right to respect for private and family life)
and 10 (freedom of expression) of the Convention, the applicants allege that those statements damaged their reputation, their good name and their right to be presumed innocent, and complain that they were unable to obtain redress before the domestic civil courts.
They also argue that the reasoning in decisions issued by the Supreme Court on 31 January and 21 March 2017, at the close of an action for damages brought by them, breached their right to be presumed innocent.
https://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=8465.msg690791#msg690791
-
I've said all along the Mcs have a very strong case and would win..gunit said they would lose..
We will find out soon whos right
Nit picking really but ...its a good job it is not up to the public
2 comments
They need to leave the cop alone thumbs up - 967...thumbs down - 153
Hope they win ....thumbs up - 204....thumbs down - 1038
-
Nit picking really but ...its a good job it is not up to the public
2 comments
They need to leave the cop alone thumbs up - 967...thumbs down - 153
Hope they win ....thumbs up - 204....thumbs down - 1038
I'm afraid that sceptics are going to be very disappointed next week...I don't think the figures give a true reflection of public opinion......more the sceptic rent a mob brigade who have been fooled by the propaganda and lies put out by some idiots
-
Nit picking really but ...its a good job it is not up to the public
2 comments
They need to leave the cop alone thumbs up - 967...thumbs down - 153
Hope they win ....thumbs up - 204....thumbs down - 1038
The Daily Mail haven't printed my Comment. If they ever do.
-
So, there will be a decision very shortly. And I have no idea of the way in which it will go.
The Court of the First Instance said that because Amaral was involved in The Investigation then he should not be allowed to use his knowledge. And I agreed with that. The rest of it then became Freedom of Speech, which I wouldn't give you tuppence happeny for. Freedom of Speech carries responsibilities and I personally don't need Freedom of Speech. It is of no use to me because I have no inherent desire to accuse anyone.
Fifteen years of accusing The McCanns. What an utter waste of time that has been. I am more concerned with with the sick minds who have done this. Presuming that I actually care.
-
So what's new in the McCann v Portugal case at the ECHR?
Any updates or has it been quietly dropped?
It would appear that it has not been “quietly dropped”, no.
-
It would appear that it has not been “quietly dropped”, no.
It never was going to be quietly dropped, which ever way it might go. Silly John. We would all have known about it. Or will know, which ever way it might go.
I truly do not have any speculations. And it is no longer of any importance to me.
Somedebody slagged someone off without just cause. Is Freedom of Speech more important than a Right to the Presumption of Innocence? I no longer have any idea. And and I don't actually care anyway.
The McCanns will never be indicted for this. So this is just point scoring now, amongst ourselves.
I mostly have no idea of what I am doing Moderating this Forum, beyond the obvious, but that the need for that doesn't happen much anymore. Unless I should want get really shirty, which I always might. You never can tell with me.
-
It never was going to be quietly dropped, which ever way it might go. Silly John. We would all have known about it. Or will know, which ever way it might go.
I truly do not have any speculations. And it is no longer of any importance to me.
Somedebody slagged someone off without just cause. Is Freedom of Speech more important than a Right to the Presumption of Innocence? I no longer have any idea. And and I don't actually care anyway.
The McCanns will never be indicted for this. So this is just point scoring now, amongst ourselves.
I mostly have no idea of what I am doing Moderating this Forum, beyond the obvious, but that the need for that doesn't happen much anymore. Unless I should want get really shirty, which I always might. You never can tell with me.
Is freedom of speech more important than the POI..sometimes yes...and sometimes no...according to the ECHR.
I won't repeat again how they decide as sceptics won't accept it anyway...but based on previous case law which I've already posted here...I see a victory for the McCanns
-
I've said all along the Mcs have a very strong case and would win..gunit said they would lose..
We will find out soon whos right
I've questioned your opinions and have given my opinions. I've made it clear that I'm not convinced that the McCanns would win. I don't recall saying they would lose.
-
The Portuguese authorities followed Portuguese and Human Rights law to the letter. The McCann's right to the presumption of innocence was not breached.
First one I looked at...you state as,a fact that the POI was not breached....you couldn't have been clearer
You claim Portugal followed human rights law to the letter
You couldn't be any clearer
-
First one I looked at...you state as,a fact that the POI was not breached....you couldn't have been clearer
You claim Portugal followed human rights law to the letter
You couldn't be any clearer
Portugal could not be any more clear. Their opinion of The Right to Innocence is of no importance to them. There is no right to Innocence in Portugal. This does not exist. Hence the likes of Amaral. And even more sadly of how he managed to do so much harm.
I have come to terms with it all now. But then it was never my child. I fight for precisely that reason.
-
I predict a lot of very unhappy sceptics on Tuesday
-
Nope. I am afraid it seems it is you who have got the wrong end of the stick. It looks very much as though the Daily Mail is merely reporting when the court in Strasbourg will deal with
"McCann and Healy v. Portugal (no. 57195/17)"
"Tuesday 20 September 2022
McCann and Healy v. Portugal (no. 57195/17)
The applicants, Gerald Patrick McCann and Kate Marie Healy, are British nationals, born in 1968.
They live in Leicestershire, in the United Kingdom.
The case concerns statements made by Mr Gonçalo Amaral – a former detective inspector – in a book, a documentary adapted from that book and a newspaper interview about the applicants’ alleged involvement in the disappearance of their daughter, Madeleine McCann, who went missing on 3 May 2007 in southern Portugal.
Relying on Articles 6 §§ 1 and 2 (right to a fair hearing),
8 (right to respect for private and family life)
and 10 (freedom of expression) of the Convention, the applicants allege that those statements damaged their reputation, their good name and their right to be presumed innocent, and complain that they were unable to obtain redress before the domestic civil courts.
They also argue that the reasoning in decisions issued by the Supreme Court on 31 January and 21 March 2017, at the close of an action for damages brought by them, breached their right to be presumed innocent.
https://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=8465.msg690791#msg690791
Nope I got the right end of the stick.
The parents of missing Madeleine McCann are due to hear on Tuesday whether or not the European Court of Human Rights believes they were wronged by the Portuguese court system.
Media sources in the UK have said the decision relates to the couple’s legal battle with former PJ police coordinator Gonçalo Amaral – the author of the book “Maddie: A Verdade da Mentira, in which he explained his theory that they could have been involved in Madeleine’s disappearance. This is not exactly true. The decision relates to the couple’s ‘complaint against Portuguese Justice’ for having absolved Mr Amaral, after years of litigation.
-
Nope I got the right end of the stick.
The parents of missing Madeleine McCann are due to hear on Tuesday whether or not the European Court of Human Rights believes they were wronged by the Portuguese court system.
Media sources in the UK have said the decision relates to the couple’s legal battle with former PJ police coordinator Gonçalo Amaral – the author of the book “Maddie: A Verdade da Mentira, in which he explained his theory that they could have been involved in Madeleine’s disappearance. This is not exactly true. The decision relates to the couple’s ‘complaint against Portuguese Justice’ for having absolved Mr Amaral, after years of litigation.
the Mail is correct...its against Portugal but relates to the libellous claims of Amarel
-
Nope I got the right end of the stick.
The parents of missing Madeleine McCann are due to hear on Tuesday whether or not the European Court of Human Rights believes they were wronged by the Portuguese court system.
Media sources in the UK have said the decision relates to the couple’s legal battle with former PJ police coordinator Gonçalo Amaral – the author of the book “Maddie: A Verdade da Mentira, in which he explained his theory that they could have been involved in Madeleine’s disappearance. This is not exactly true. The decision relates to the couple’s ‘complaint against Portuguese Justice’ for having absolved Mr Amaral, after years of litigation.
You misinterpreted the Mail article as having "got the wrong end of the stick" regarding notification from the European court. Just another illustration of sceptic denial when reportage of actual events doesn't suit their agenda.
Whichever way the cookie crumbles next Tuesday we have reached a stage in proceedings that sceptics almost universally claimed would never be reached.
-
I predict a lot of very unhappy sceptics on Tuesday
I think you are right and I hope that you are.
I think that setting the precedent that rogue judges will have to think twice before riding roughshod over Human Rights will be no bad thing for the Portuguese judicial system at all levels.
-
You misinterpreted the Mail article as having "got the wrong end of the stick" regarding notification from the European court. Just another illustration of sceptic denial when reportage of actual events doesn't suit their agenda.
Whichever way the cookie crumbles next Tuesday we have reached a stage in proceedings that sceptics almost universally claimed would never be reached.
OH FGS
Why make such an issue of a through away comment ...your the one with an agenda.
I did not misrepresent anything DM did by making out it was against G A an not portugal
Even a comment DM allowed ....leave the cop alone shows that it was misleading B
Madeleine McCann’s parents will find out next week if they have won their rollercoaster legal battle against the former policeman who suggested they were responsible for her disappearance.
Goncalo Ameral did win the battle.....the mccs lost an took Portugal to ECHR to save there reputation etc.
Since when have the media represented truth...there aim is to sell papers.
Although I do think PR got it as near to the mark as you can get...also reminds you the mccs are not fully classed as innocent.
https://www.portugalresident.com/mccanns-versus-portugal-european-court-publishes-decision-on-tuesday/
Media sources in the UK have said the decision relates to the couple’s legal battle with former PJ police coordinator Gonçalo Amaral........................................This is not exactly true. The decision relates to the couple’s ‘complaint against Portuguese Justice’
-
I predict a lot of very unhappy sceptics on Tuesday
What be unhappy about the mccs imo trying to save reputation something that has been there main priority since day one.
They are not there for maddie.
It seems you and B glorify more in the fact it got to ECHR, ,,,god knows how you will feel when they loose.
statements damaged their reputation, their good name and their right to be presumed innocent,
This is all they have ever been about ....yet every thing that happened was brought on by themselves.
-
What be unhappy about the mccs imo trying to save reputation something that has been there main priority since day one.
They are not there for maddie.
It seems you and B glorify more in the fact it got to ECHR, ,,,god knows how you will feel when they loose.
statements damaged their reputation, their good name and their right to be presumed innocent,
This is all they have ever been about ....yet every thing that happened was brought on by themselves.
In my opinion their reputations and good names were damaged in some people's eyes immediately they admitted that they left three small children home alone for five nights on the trot.
-
In my opinion their reputations and good names were damaged in some people's eyes immediately they admitted that they left three small children home alone for five nights on the trot.
Do you think you understand the law...you don't seem to.
None of what you say has any bearing on the alleged defamation by amaral
-
OH FGS
Why make such an issue of a through away comment ...your the one with an agenda.
I did not misrepresent anything DM did by making out it was against G A an not portugal
Even a comment DM allowed ....leave the cop alone shows that it was misleading B
Madeleine McCann’s parents will find out next week if they have won their rollercoaster legal battle against the former policeman who suggested they were responsible for her disappearance.
Goncalo Ameral did win the battle.....the mccs lost an took Portugal to ECHR to save there reputation etc.
Since when have the media represented truth...there aim is to sell papers.
Although I do think PR got it as near to the mark as you can get...also reminds you the mccs are not fully classed as innocent.
https://www.portugalresident.com/mccanns-versus-portugal-european-court-publishes-decision-on-tuesday/
Media sources in the UK have said the decision relates to the couple’s legal battle with former PJ police coordinator Gonçalo Amaral........................................This is not exactly true. The decision relates to the couple’s ‘complaint against Portuguese Justice’
You are mistaken to base your opinion on the PR which is totally supportive of amaral and Portugal.
The fact is that the case is against Portugal and relates to amaral..that's 100% true. Amarsl features in the recent press release fron the ECHR and will feature heavily in the judgement by the ECHR. It could well result in his book being banned in Portugal
-
Do you think you understand the law...you don't seem to.
None of what you say has any bearing on the alleged defamation by amaral
I know that whether they are successful or not at the ECHR it won't make a blind bit of difference to how peope see them.
-
I know that whether they are successful or not at the ECHR it won't make a blind bit of difference to how peope see them.
I know you are wrong..
-
What be unhappy about the mccs imo trying to save reputation something that has been there main priority since day one.
They are not there for maddie.
It seems you and B glorify more in the fact it got to ECHR, ,,,god knows how you will feel when they loose.
statements damaged their reputation, their good name and their right to be presumed innocent,
This is all they have ever been about ....yet every thing that happened was brought on by themselves.
Sorry to say but most of what you have posted is total junk
If Maddie was murdered by CB that is not their fault
-
the Mail is correct...its against Portugal but relates to the libellous claims of Amarel
Why cant you get it.
the libellous claims of Amarel
They wasn't libelous.......because
G A fought the mccs and won.......he is out of it now.....he wasn't the looser...its not about him
-
Sorry to say but most of what you have posted is total junk
If Maddie was murdered by CB that is not their fault
Thats only Ifs..........but anyway its not about CB though is it....an that charade
Its all about the mccs reputation ect ect same as it has always been....from day one.
An as already been said ....it will not alter anything about peoples opinion of the mccs.
-
Why cant you get it.
the libellous claims of Amarel
They wasn't libelous.......because
G A fought the mccs and won.......he is out of it now.....he wasn't the looser...its not about him
The ECHR may well say they were defamatory.
-
Thats only Ifs..........but anyway its not about CB though is it....an that charade
Its all about the mccs reputation ect ect same as it has always been....from day one.
An as already been said ....it will not alter anything about peoples opinion of the mccs.
Much might depend on how the media play this.
If McCann win will the media portray them as ultimately vindicated?
If McCann lose, will the media portray them as victims of injustice ?
It'll be too much to expect simple straight-forward reporting and leave it at that.
-
Thats only Ifs..........but anyway its not about CB though is it....an that charade
Its all about the mccs reputation ect ect same as it has always been....from day one.
An as already been said ....it will not alter anything about peoples opinion of the mccs.
It will alter how people think
And I can tell you why
-
Much might depend on how the media play this.
If McCann win will the media portray them as ultimately vindicated?
If McCann lose, will the media portray them as victims of injustice ?
It'll be too much to expect simple straight-forward reporting and leave it at that.
We will have the ECHR judgment to read...that wil be the best way to judge it
-
We will have the ECHR judgment to read...that wil be the best way to judge it
Indeed, but how many will ? Probably not many.
Your average Express or Mail reader will just accept what is fed to them.
-
Indeed, but how many will ? Probably not many.
Your average Express or Mail reader will just accept what is fed to them.
It will depend on what's in the judgement. It may well be the judgement is critical of amaral and his claims...and.of the Portuguese justice system for allowing him to make these claims
-
It will depend on what's in the judgement. It may well be the judgement is critical of amaral and his claims...and.of the Portuguese justice system for allowing him to make these claims
We'll need to wait and see. Tuesday I'm told, though not sure about the time.
-
It will depend on what's in the judgement. It may well be the judgement is critical of amaral and his claims...and.of the Portuguese justice system for allowing him to make these claims
You hope..............but it may well not be.
As it is the book isn't liable or it would have been banned...say his climes will stay....either way.
-
Indeed, but how many will ? Probably not many.
Your average Express or Mail reader will just accept what is fed to them.
It'll be competing for space what with the event the day before which will no doubt consume the vast majority interest .
-
We'll need to wait and see. Tuesday I'm told, though not sure about the time.
9 am.
-
You hope..............but it may well not be.
As it is the book isn't liable or it would have been banned...say his climes will stay....either way.
you really need to listen to someone who knows what they are talking about..thats me. i probably know more about the court and ECHR case than anyone else on any forum...including poulton...brown...the P resident......eevry one of them.
first the SC did not rule on whether the book was libellous....and the SC did noy say the mcCanns havent been proved innocece...yhey simply gave their opinion on the balance of rights re article 8 and 10....and they got it wrong and i can tell you why.
this case is all about amaral rights under articla 10 and the McCanns rights under article 8.
If you look at how the ECHR decide one of the major points is the veraciity of the claims ...in this case those made by amaral
The portuguese court made a mistake...even the court of the first instance...they said they were not there to consider the veracity of amarals claims..they would not let Gerry present his arguments re the dogs which would have shown amarals claims were not based on facts.....but on lies...thats contrary to the ECHRs stance...major error by portugal.
the mcCanns have quoted Springer vs Germnay where the ECHR ruked in favour of free speech...peter mac...who must be a bit thick on the CMOMM site says he cant understand why the Mcs have cited a case where Free speech was ruled more important....i understand...it sbecause the claims were true and proved in court.
so the ECHR will look at the evidence and see whether amaral was right to pronounce the mccanns guilty...the dogs etc...they will look at that and may even give their opinions on them. the archiving despatch said none of the evidence used to make the mccans guilty was confirmed..its in the files. so amaral is nmaking claims with no evidence to support them.
Based on all this I cannot see any way the ECHR will not find in the McCanns favour
-
Thats only Ifs..........but anyway its not about CB though is it....an that charade
Its all about the mccs reputation ect ect same as it has always been....from day one.
An as already been said ....it will not alter anything about peoples opinion of the mccs.
If, by some chance, the ECHR finds that Portugal has breached the McCann's human rights they will have achieved more than if they had defeated Amaral. They will have discredited not just him, but his entire country.
-
Do you accept the converse position if they lose ?
-
Why cant you get it.
the libellous claims of Amarel
They wasn't libelous.......because
G A fought the mccs and won.......he is out of it now.....he wasn't the looser...its not about him
If the European Court of Human Rights rules in favour of McCann and Healey I think there is a possibility that Amaral may not be "out of it now".
Bear in mind that Amaral has continued to slander and libel his way throughout the intervening years since the Portuguese Appeal Court judges made the ruling complained about in the ECHR.
I think he will be 'safe' for the time being until the Germans bring their action against Brueckner to conclusion. After that, who knows.
It is worth contemplating that Amaral has also very publicly interfered in an active police investigation. There could well be repercussions from that.
Sceptics might wish to put about that Amaral was a small cog in the machine, despite his claims to the contrary;
GA : Here, Miguel, you are wrong, what is in the book is the narrative of six month of investigation, during which I was in charge https://www.facebook.com/Madeleinemyths/posts/251527198594833/
I think that indeed it would have been a good idea for him to have kept a lower profile and bowed "out of it" while he still had a choice in the matter.
-
Not long now. Only a State Funeral to get through and then all will be revealed.
I doubt the result will be of world-shattering importance, whatever it is.
-
Much might depend on how the media play this.
If McCann win will the media portray them as ultimately vindicated?
If McCann lose, will the media portray them as victims of injustice ?
It'll be too much to expect simple straight-forward reporting and leave it at that.
Perhaps that might be a position better addressed by the myriad of pejorative sites and those individuals posting on them to give serious thought to before posting more ill informed misinformation as is their wont.
The media will put a slant on their copy; that is what they do; but there are recognised rules and regulations governing what that is.
-
you really need to listen to someone who knows what they are talking about..thats me. i probably know more about the court and ECHR case than anyone else on any forum...including poulton...brown...the P resident......eevry one of them.
first the SC did not rule on whether the book was libellous....and the SC did noy say the mcCanns havent been proved innocece...yhey simply gave their opinion on the balance of rights re article 8 and 10....and they got it wrong and i can tell you why.
this case is all about amaral rights under articla 10 and the McCanns rights under article 8.
If you look at how the ECHR decide one of the major points is the veraciity of the claims ...in this case those made by amaral
The portuguese court made a mistake...even the court of the first instance...they said they were not there to consider the veracity of amarals claims..they would not let Gerry present his arguments re the dogs which would have shown amarals claims were not based on facts.....but on lies...thats contrary to the ECHRs stance...major error by portugal.
the mcCanns have quoted Springer vs Germnay where the ECHR ruked in favour of free speech...peter mac...who must be a bit thick on the CMOMM site says he cant understand why the Mcs have cited a case where Free speech was ruled more important....i understand...it sbecause the claims were true and proved in court.
so the ECHR will look at the evidence and see whether amaral was right to pronounce the mccanns guilty...the dogs etc...they will look at that and may even give their opinions on them. the archiving despatch said none of the evidence used to make the mccans guilty was confirmed..its in the files. so amaral is nmaking claims with no evidence to support them.
Based on all this I cannot see any way the ECHR will not find in the McCanns favour
The sad thing is that Amaral knew full well that the "interim report" which he continued to promote in his book and at every media opportunity over the years had long been superseded by the process.
GA : Here, Miguel, you are wrong, what is in the book is the narrative of six month of investigation, during which I was in charge, and the report concludes with certain suspicions that existed at that time and as you know,
criminal investigation has a beginning,
a middle
and an end,
and at that moment there were suspicions, which doesn't mean that later they couldn't be discarded
https://www.facebook.com/Madeleinemyths/posts/251527198594833/
As they were. Yet he did what he did and the Portuguese Supreme Court judges backed him up in their judgement.
I agree that it is highly likely that the European Court will find against Portugal on Tuesday for all the reasons you have succinctly summed up.
-
I remember that The PJ refused to give him permission to publish his book, which is why he resigned. Are there any implications attached to this?
-
Not long now. Only a State Funeral to get through and then all will be revealed.
I doubt the result will be of world-shattering importance, whatever it is.
Not world-shattering no, but no one ever claimed it would be. I have no doubt you will be on here at 9am sharp on Tuesday with your bag of popcorn, keeping your fingers firmly crossed for bad news for the McCanns.
-
All I'm interested in are Bhristian Crueckners rights.
-
If, by some chance, the ECHR finds that Portugal has breached the McCann's human rights they will have achieved more than if they had defeated Amaral. They will have discredited not just him, but his entire country.
By some chance ....not predicting a win then...
It is nothing to do with Amaral anymore.
The rest is just your speculation
-
By some chance ....not predicting a win then...
It is nothing to do with Amaral anymore.
The rest is just your speculation
After the SC judgement it never was.
All the ECHR are interested in is did Portugal ignore human rights when making their judgement.
-
By some chance ....not predicting a win then...
It is nothing to do with Amaral anymore.
The rest is just your speculation
Thanks for your comment..it certainly isn't my speculation..
That post was made by gunit in another forum..gunit which you have a lot if respect for...on this occasion I think she's right
-
By some chance ....not predicting a win then...
It is nothing to do with Amaral anymore.
The rest is just your speculation
You need to stop listening to the rubbish on pro Amaral forums...its everything to do with Amaral....have you read the latest echr release...could well see his book banned again
-
One more day to go after what has seemed to be an interminable wait.
The devil will be in the detail, if there is any, of course.
And of course it is about Amaral. He wrote the wretched book wherein he Libelled The McCanns. He had no proof that they were involved and still doesn't have any after Fifteen Years. Although I don't know if this is relevant to The ECHR, yet.
-
One more day to go after what has seemed to be an interminable wait.
The devil will be in the detail, if there is any, of course.
And of course it is about Amaral. He wrote the wretched book wherein he Libelled The McCanns. He had no proof that they were involved and still doesn't have any after Fifteen Years. Although I don't know if this is relevant to The ECHR, yet.
His unfounded allegations are at the root of the approved malice directed against the continuation of seeking answers as to what happened to a missing child while at the same time impugning the innocence of her parents.
You would think that having been subjected to the closest scrutiny possible over the past fifteen years; having public pronouncements made as a result of that scrutiny in conjunction with other evidence by British, German and Portuguese police and prosecutors that neither the McCanns nor anyone associated with them were of the slightest interest to their investigations, the penny might have dropped.
I think the Supreme Court ruling which deliberately took away the right to the presumption of innocence has to play badly in the European court.
But as you say, the devil is in the detail.
-
One more day to go after what has seemed to be an interminable wait.
The devil will be in the detail, if there is any, of course.
And of course it is about Amaral. He wrote the wretched book wherein he Libelled The McCanns. He had no proof that they were involved and still doesn't have any after Fifteen Years. Although I don't know if this is relevant to The ECHR, yet.
How's the case against 'The Abductor' going though?
Evidence stacking up against him after all this time is it?
-
I mean, here we are, 15 years after Amaral said there just wasn't any abductor, & the 3 expert investigative forces still haven't brought 'The Abductor' to justice, despite all the abduction evidence.
Who could possibly have foreseen that?
Well, me actually.
-
His unfounded allegations are at the root of the approved malice directed against the continuation of seeking answers as to what happened to a missing child while at the same time impugning the innocence of her parents.
You would think that having been subjected to the closest scrutiny possible over the past fifteen years; having public pronouncements made as a result of that scrutiny in conjunction with other evidence by British, German and Portuguese police and prosecutors that neither the McCanns nor anyone associated with them were of the slightest interest to their investigations, the penny might have dropped.
I think the Supreme Court ruling which deliberately took away the right to the presumption of innocence has to play badly in the European court.
But as you say, the devil is in the detail.
As I understand it The Portuguese Court ruled that Freedom of Expression was more important than a Right to the Presumption of Innocence. Which basically means that anyone in Portugal has the unproven right to say whatever they like about anybody.
I suspect that this is a leftover from the years and years of The Dictator Salazar when only The PJ were of any importance and ruled in his name. Fear being the operative word. So some of the people who grew up during The Salazar Reign don't really have much idea of what is acceptable in 2022.
In the current case at The ECHR Brueckner is of no importance.
-
How's the case against 'The Abductor' going though?
Evidence stacking up against him after all this time is it?
Brueckner is of no importance in the case now being considered by The ECHR.
-
I mean, here we are, 15 years after Amaral said there just wasn't any abductor, & the 3 expert investigative forces still haven't brought 'The Abductor' to justice, despite all the abduction evidence.
Who could possibly have foreseen that?
Well, me actually.
You need to get on the right wavelength. The ECHR aren't interested in Brueckner.
-
One more day to go after what has seemed to be an interminable wait.
The devil will be in the detail, if there is any, of course.
And of course it is about Amaral. He wrote the wretched book wherein he Libelled The McCanns. He had no proof that they were involved and still doesn't have any after Fifteen Years. Although I don't know if this is relevant to The ECHR, yet.
Have an estate agent visiting in the morning, I'll be more interested in what he has to say.
-
I mean, here we are, 15 years after Amaral said there just wasn't any abductor, & the 3 expert investigative forces still haven't brought 'The Abductor' to justice, despite all the abduction evidence.
Who could possibly have foreseen that?
Well, me actually.
You need to get on the right wavelength. The ECHR aren't interested in Brueckner.
You seem to be saying Brueckner abducted Maddie.
Wouldn't that be libel?
-
Brueckner is of no importance in the case now being considered by The ECHR.
No-one had heard of Brueckner when the case was submitted to the ECHR.
-
Have an estate agent visiting in the morning, I'll be more interested in what he has to say.
I'm much the same, have to take the dog to the park then go food shopping so won't have much time. Could you post up a synopsis of the judgement if there's anything interesting
-
You seem to be saying Brueckner abducted Maddie.
Wouldn't that be libel?
You got the wrong end of the stick there WS.
Eleanor is the strongest advocate of *innicent unless proven guilty* on the forum
Hadn't you noticed ?
-
You got the wrong end of the stick there WS.
Eleanor is the strongest advocate of *innicent unless proven guilty* on the forum
Hadn't you noticed ?
Thank you, Sadie. It's just Spammy being silly again.
-
It has been ruled against the parents, stating they had a fair hearing in portugal.
-
What's your source for this ?
-
I'm much the same, have to take the dog to the park then go food shopping so won't have much time. Could you post up a synopsis of the judgement if there's anything interesting
Yeah they said the house was well presented and should achieve a asking price of above £270,000
-
What's your source for this ?
It's in the Guardian
-
Right, who's going to be the first to gloat?
-
Its on the ECHR in French , need translating.
-
It's in the Guardian
Thanks.
I see there is an appeal system. I didn't know that and thought the ECHR ruling was final.
Having been defeated yet again I wonder whether they'll bother.
-
Thanks.
I see there is an appeal system. I didn't know that and thought the ECHR ruling was final.
Having been defeated yet again I wonder whether they'll bother.
Oh I'm sure they will. It won't cost them anything.
-
The couple went to the European court of human rights (ECHR) to seek redress, relying on the European convention on human rights – including articles conferring the right to a fair hearing (article 6) and the right to respect for private and family life (article 8) – to argue that Amaral’s statements damaged their reputation, their good name and their right to be presumed innocent.
But a chamber of seven judges unanimously decided that there had been no violation of article 8.
A press release issued by the ECHR said: “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, which had led to their being placed under investigation in the course of the criminal investigation (the prosecutor’s office decided to take no further action in July 2008) and had led to intense media attention and much controversy.
“The information had thus been brought to the public’s attention in some detail even before the investigation file was made available to the media and the book in question was published. It followed that the national authorities had not failed in their positive obligation to protect the applicants’ right to respect for their private life.”
The judges ruled the complaint under article 6 to be inadmissible because they said the Portuguese supreme court did not appear to have made comments implying guilt on the part of Madeleine’s parents or suspicion against them.
The McCanns now have three months to appeal against the decision.
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/madeleine-mccann-s-parents-lose-challenge-over-portuguese-libel-case/ar-AA121wmr?ocid=msedgntp&cvid=629f6fd9b71b4fba882cc6339145b77e
-
The couple went to the European court of human rights (ECHR) to seek redress, relying on the European convention on human rights – including articles conferring the right to a fair hearing (article 6) and the right to respect for private and family life (article 8) – to argue that Amaral’s statements damaged their reputation, their good name and their right to be presumed innocent.
But a chamber of seven judges unanimously decided that there had been no violation of article 8.
A press release issued by the ECHR said: “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, which had led to their being placed under investigation in the course of the criminal investigation (the prosecutor’s office decided to take no further action in July 2008) and had led to intense media attention and much controversy.
“The information had thus been brought to the public’s attention in some detail even before the investigation file was made available to the media and the book in question was published. It followed that the national authorities had not failed in their positive obligation to protect the applicants’ right to respect for their private life.”
The judges ruled the complaint under article 6 to be inadmissible because they said the Portuguese supreme court did not appear to have made comments implying guilt on the part of Madeleine’s parents or suspicion against them.
The McCanns now have three months to appeal against the decision.
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/madeleine-mccann-s-parents-lose-challenge-over-portuguese-libel-case/ar-AA121wmr?ocid=msedgntp&cvid=629f6fd9b71b4fba882cc6339145b77e
The judgement by the ECHR is pretty comprehensive imo and leaves very little manoeuvring room for any appeal but it is their right should they choose to go down that road. Talking of roads, I still believe the Smith's sighting the night Madeleine disappeared will remain a crucial element of this case.
-
The judgement by the ECHR is pretty comprehensive imo and leaves very little manoeuvring room for any appeal but it is their right should they choose to go down that road. Talking of roads, I still believe the Smith's sighting the night Madeleine disappeared will remain a crucial element of this case.
Going on what Kate and Gerry have said regarding this judgement, I doubt very much indeed if they will appeal the decision made against them.
I disagree with you that the alleged sighting by the Smith family has any relevance to Madeleine's case; perhaps if they had ever explained Peter's dream a fortnight after the event in question things might have been more concise.
For example at any stage in the inquiry the lead detective could have been free to make the observation which occurred to him at a later date.
One wonders why it did not occur to him to further check out local paedophiles at the time having been handed a working description which he filed away for future reference but did nothing with at the time.
Former Maddie case investigator Gonçalo Amaral said the suspect in the disappearance of the British child in 2007 is "almost the same" to Madeleine McCann's father, Gerry.
The inspector of the Judicial Police who initially conducted the investigation of the Maddie case, Gonçalo Amaral, says that the suspect in the disappearance of the child is very similar, "almost equal", to Maddie's father, Gerry McCann.
Amaral says the suspect is a German pedophile, but not what this year was pointed out by the press.
https://bomdia.eu/goncalo-amaral-suspeito-do-rapto-de-maddie-e-parecido-com-o-pai/#:~:text=O%20inspetor%20da%20Pol%C3%ADcia%20Judici%C3%A1ria%20que%20inicialmente%20conduziu,o%20que%20este%20ano%20foi%20apontado%20pela%20imprensa.
-
Nor do I think he will ever be in the position to do so. However, one hurdle at a time. The McCann lawyers have applied to the ECHR ... it remains to be seen if that application is successful ... and if so most likely an even longer wait before judgement day.
Do I get the impression that Amaral is rapidly becoming a footnote in history?
Aged like milk. Oof.
-
Echr website reports possible transfer to the Grand Chamber... Whats the betting its re my criticism of the proven facts
-
Echr website reports possible transfer to the Grand Chamber... Whats the betting its re my criticism of the proven facts
Well, a source close to the family did say they were exploring their legal options, & the McCanns have said they head into the new year with continued determination and positivity.
I wouldn't expect any less from them really. Even though by their own admission they "took action for one and only one reason: Mr Amaral’s unfounded claims were having a detrimental impact on the search for Madeleine. If the public believed that we were involved in her disappearance, then people would not be alert for possible clues and may not report relevant information to the relevant law enforcement agencies."
I guess they still haven't got the message from the three expert investigative forces, that Madeleine was, unquestionably, murdered by Christian Brueckner, & that Wolters will be proving this in a court of law, autumn 2023.
-
Echr website reports possible transfer to the Grand Chamber... Whats the betting its re my criticism of the proven facts
Past history suggests you're reading of the ECHR leaves a lot to be desired
43.1
As if thats exceptional.
1. Within a period of three months from the date of the judgment
of the Chamber, any party to the case may, in exceptional cases,
request that the case be referred to the Grand Chamber.
-
Past history suggests you're reading of the ECHR leaves a lot to be desired
43.1
As if thats exceptional.
1. Within a period of three months from the date of the judgment
of the Chamber, any party to the case may, in exceptional cases,
request that the case be referred to the Grand Chamber.
It seems it was listed as an application pending today
-
It seems it was listed as an application pending today
Anyway. I'm glad to see you are still around Mr Davel. Hadn't seen you here so long I was starting to wonder if you hadn't had personal issues. Happy Ney Year.
-
Well, a source close to the family did say they were exploring their legal options, & the McCanns have said they head into the new year with continued determination and positivity.
I wouldn't expect any less from them really. Even though by their own admission they "took action for one and only one reason: Mr Amaral’s unfounded claims were having a detrimental impact on the search for Madeleine. If the public believed that we were involved in her disappearance, then people would not be alert for possible clues and may not report relevant information to the relevant law enforcement agencies."
I guess they still haven't got the message from the three expert investigative forces, that Madeleine was, unquestionably, murdered by Christian Brueckner, & that Wolters will be proving this in a court of law, autumn 2023.
Which three? Not SY, they are looking for a missing Madeleine.
Please curb yourself and start telling the truth. We wouldn't like you to get a reputation like Gunit, would we?
-
Past history suggests you're reading of the ECHR leaves a lot to be desired
43.1
As if thats exceptional.
1. Within a period of three months from the date of the judgment
of the Chamber, any party to the case may, in exceptional cases,
request that the case be referred to the Grand Chamber.
As I recall the ECHR didn't see anything exceptional about this case.
-
Which three? Not SY, they are looking for a missing Madeleine.
Please curb yourself and start telling the truth. We wouldn't like you to get a reputation like Gunit, would we?
Says the person who gives credence to and promotes the fantasies of self-appointed psychics and those who have a completely unrealistic view of history. Who needs detectives when the answers lie within the websites of the lunatic fringe, eh Sadie? I live in the real world.
-
Says the person who gives credence to and promotes the fantasies of self-appointed psychics and those who have a completely unrealistic view of history. Who needs detectives when the answers lie within the websites of the lunatic fringe, eh Sadie? I live in the real world.
Is that the real world where smoking doesn’t cause serious life threatening diseases?
-
Says the person who gives credence to and promotes the fantasies of self-appointed psychics and those who have a completely unrealistic view of history. Who needs detectives when the answers lie within the websites of the lunatic fringe, eh Sadie? I live in the real world.
Sadie is as much entitled to her opinion as anyone else. Your opinions as a Moderator are no better.
-
Sadie is as much entitled to her opinion as anyone else. Your opinions as a Moderator are no better.
If Sadie or anyone else makes comments about me I will respond.
-
If Sadie or anyone else makes comments about me I will respond.
But you choose to suggest that Sadie isn't the whole schilling. Are you do you think?
-
Says the person who gives credence to and promotes the fantasies of self-appointed psychics and those who have a completely unrealistic view of history. Who needs detectives when the answers lie within the websites of the lunatic fringe, eh Sadie? I live in the real world.
Afaiac Sadie views have as much credibility as yours
-
I am not having any more rude remarks or bullying of Sadie. I will Report the comments of anyone who does this, no matter who you are.
Is this understood?
-
But you choose to suggest that Sadie isn't the whole schilling. Are you do you think?
I did not, that's your interpretation of what I said. Sadie consistantly attacks me and is encouraged to do so by you and others. You should all stop attacking other people.
-
I am not having any more rude remarks or bullying of Sadie. I will Report the comments of anyone who does this, no matter who you are.
Is this understood?
Is it ok to compliment her on her pointers? 8**8:/:
-
I did not, that's your interpretation of what I said. Sadie consistantly attacks me and is encouraged to do so by you and others. You should all stop attacking other people.
I defend myself when I think it is necessary, which isn't very often. While you attack a very old lady who knows more about this affair than you ever will.
Sadie remains her own person. And perfectly compos mentis.
Fortunately, you no longer feel obliged to attack me very often, probably because it was not a good idea. But my goodness me, you did try. You failed miserably. The sad thing is that I really liked you.
-
I defend myself when I think it is necessary, which isn't very often. While you attack a very old lady who knows more about this affair than you ever will.
Sadie remains her own person. And perfectly compos mentis.
Fortunately, you no longer feel obliged to attack me very often, probably because it was not a good idea. But my goodness me, you did try. You failed miserably. The sad thing is that I really liked you.
I've never attacked Sadie or you, that's all opinion.
-
I've never attacked Sadie or you, that's all opinion.
What a very short memory you have.
-
What a very short memory you have.
I remeber all the insults you have hurled at me and others.
-
I remeber all the insults you have hurled at me and others.
No you don't, because I haven't.
But no doubt you will trawl back through my comments to find one, as you have done in the past. You had to trawl back nine years to find the last one.
-
It seems it was listed as an application pending today
Its showing no different to back in October.
-
Do you know what - at this moment in time I think it highly probable that the ECHR is very low on the McCann list of priorities.
-
Its showing no different to back in October.
That's true, it's not a recent addition.
-
Do you know what - at this moment in time I think it highly probable that the ECHR is very low on the McCann list of priorities.
The Supreme Court of Portugal informed us that;
And let not be said, too, that the appellants were cleared by the order of filing the criminal proceedings.
In fact, that dispatch was not proclaimed by virtue of the Public Ministry having gained the conviction that the appellants had not committed any crime (cf. art. 277° of the CPP).
The filing, in this case, was decided because it was not possible for Public Ministry to obtain sufficient evidence of the practice of crimes by the appellants (cf. the cited art. 277°-2)
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=7937.15
Perhaps they no longer care that their claims of being cleared were rejected.
False news;
Madeleine McCann's parents officially cleared as police shelve investigation
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/madeleine-mccanns-parents-officially-cleared-729039
McCanns and Murat formally cleared in case of missing Madeleinehttps://www.theguardian.com/uk/2008/jul/21/madeleinemccann.internationalcrime
-
The Supreme Court of Portugal informed us that;
And let not be said, too, that the appellants were cleared by the order of filing the criminal proceedings.
In fact, that dispatch was not proclaimed by virtue of the Public Ministry having gained the conviction that the appellants had not committed any crime (cf. art. 277° of the CPP).
The filing, in this case, was decided because it was not possible for Public Ministry to obtain sufficient evidence of the practice of crimes by the appellants (cf. the cited art. 277°-2)
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=7937.15
Perhaps they no longer care that their claims of being cleared were rejected.
False news;
Madeleine McCann's parents officially cleared as police shelve investigation
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/madeleine-mccanns-parents-officially-cleared-729039
McCanns and Murat formally cleared in case of missing Madeleinehttps://www.theguardian.com/uk/2008/jul/21/madeleinemccann.internationalcrime
It really isn't worth arguing with such entrenched views and I wouldn't waste my time trying to.
It is all so pointless and it really is all you've got to comfort yourself with.
The minute that Scotland Yard began their investigation into Madeleine McCann's disappearance the McCanns knocked all the sceptic mantras into the long grass of the cess pits to which they belong.
I know you and other sceptics don't like it at all. But that is very much the way it is. The McCanns are innocent and there is nothing you or Amaral can say which changes that.
At risk of repeating myself - I doubt very much that anyone is bothered with your priorities - as the focus is no longer on the ECHR but on the work which is taking place right now to find out what happened to Madeleine McCann.
-
It really isn't worth arguing with such entrenched views and I wouldn't waste my time trying to.
It is all so pointless and it really is all you've got to comfort yourself with.
The minute that Scotland Yard began their investigation into Madeleine McCann's disappearance the McCanns knocked all the sceptic mantras into the long grass of the cess pits to which they belong.
I know you and other sceptics don't like it at all. But that is very much the way it is. The McCanns are innocent and there is nothing you or Amaral can say which changes that.
At risk of repeating myself - I doubt very much that anyone is bothered with your priorities - as the focus is no longer on the ECHR but on the work which is taking place right now to find out what happened to Madeleine McCann.
Out of interest Brietta, How do you know the McCanns are innocent?
-
Do you know what - at this moment in time I think it highly probable that the ECHR is very low on the McCann list of priorities.
Have they got something more important to be getting on with then? Such as what exactly?
-
The Supreme Court of Portugal informed us that;
And let not be said, too, that the appellants were cleared by the order of filing the criminal proceedings.
In fact, that dispatch was not proclaimed by virtue of the Public Ministry having gained the conviction that the appellants had not committed any crime (cf. art. 277° of the CPP).
The filing, in this case, was decided because it was not possible for Public Ministry to obtain sufficient evidence of the practice of crimes by the appellants (cf. the cited art. 277°-2)
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=7937.15
Perhaps they no longer care that their claims of being cleared were rejected.
False news;
Madeleine McCann's parents officially cleared as police shelve investigation
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/madeleine-mccanns-parents-officially-cleared-729039
McCanns and Murat formally cleared in case of missing Madeleinehttps://www.theguardian.com/uk/2008/jul/21/madeleinemccann.internationalcrime
To claim that neither the McCanns nor Murat have been cleared of involvement in Madeleine’s disappearance is blatantly fake news, no question about it.
-
To claim that neither the McCanns nor Murat have been cleared of involvement in Madeleine’s disappearance is blatantly fake news, no question about it.
How were they cleared? They weren't cleared by the order of filing the criminal proceedings. So how?
-
How were they cleared? They weren't cleared by the order of filing the criminal proceedings. So how?
To make the statement that neither Murat nor the McCanns have been cleared of involvement in Madeleine’s disappearance strongly implies they are still under suspicion. As there is no possible way they could be cleared without a trial, it is highly disingenuous to make the claim that they haven’t been cleared. They are not suspects, they are not under suspicion, they are not being investigated, no one who matters thinks they are involved, the authorities are convinced Madeleine was abducted by a stranger (someone other than Robert Murat) and no amount of sceptics claiming they haven’t been cleared changes any of that. So when you say “they haven’t been cleared” you are simply playing silly b....rs, end of.
-
To make the statement that neither Murat nor the McCanns have been cleared of involvement in Madeleine’s disappearance strongly implies they are still under suspicion. As there is no possible way they could be cleared without a trial, it is highly disingenuous to make the claim that they haven’t been cleared. They are not suspects, they are not under suspicion, they are not being investigated, no one who matters thinks they are involved, the authorities are convinced Madeleine was abducted by a stranger (someone other than Robert Murat) and no amount of sceptics claiming they haven’t been cleared changes any of that. So when you say “they haven’t been cleared” you are simply playing silly b....rs, end of.
This is the name of the game these days. Nothing to go on so make it up as you go along. Any old rubbish will do.
-
To make the statement that neither Murat nor the McCanns have been cleared of involvement in Madeleine’s disappearance strongly implies they are still under suspicion. As there is no possible way they could be cleared without a trial, it is highly disingenuous to make the claim that they haven’t been cleared. They are not suspects, they are not under suspicion, they are not being investigated, no one who matters thinks they are involved, the authorities are convinced Madeleine was abducted by a stranger (someone other than Robert Murat) and no amount of sceptics claiming they haven’t been cleared changes any of that. So when you say “they haven’t been cleared” you are simply playing silly b....rs, end of.
Well if you're ever left wondering why the 3 investigative forces are unable to solve the abduction you keep imagining, then give me a shout & I'll explain to you why that is.
-
To make the statement that neither Murat nor the McCanns have been cleared of involvement in Madeleine’s disappearance strongly implies they are still under suspicion. As there is no possible way they could be cleared without a trial, it is highly disingenuous to make the claim that they haven’t been cleared. They are not suspects, they are not under suspicion, they are not being investigated, no one who matters thinks they are involved, the authorities are convinced Madeleine was abducted by a stranger (someone other than Robert Murat) and no amount of sceptics claiming they haven’t been cleared changes any of that. So when you say “they haven’t been cleared” you are simply playing silly b....rs, end of.
It seemed very important to the McCanns at the time to claim they had been cleared. Their words, not mine.
-
It seemed very important to the McCanns at the time to claim they had been cleared. Their words, not mine.
They believed they had been, as did Robert Murat, and I can fully understand why that would be important to both parties, you’d have to be completely lacking in empathy not to understand that.
-
They believed they had been, as did Robert Murat, and I can fully understand why that would be important to both parties, you’d have to be completely lacking in empathy not to understand that.
I empathise with Robert Murat......
-
They believed they had been, as did Robert Murat, and I can fully understand why that would be important to both parties, you’d have to be completely lacking in empathy not to understand that.
I can only assume that someone misinterpreted the archiving despatch which proved expensive for the McCanns.
-
I can only assume that someone misinterpreted the archiving despatch which proved expensive for the McCanns.
The first PT judge must also have misunderstood it too then.
-
The first PT judge must also have misunderstood it too then.
Now there's a thought. The Judges of the First Instance don't seem to do well in Portugal. One has to wonder what happens to them.
-
The first PT judge must also have misunderstood it too then.
Nope. The judge thought Amaral breached the rules governing retired Portuguese police officers. He didn't.
-
Nope. The judge thought Amaral breached the rules governing retired Portuguese police officers. He didn't.
So the judge didn’t think that he had defamed the MCCanns but awarded them record damages. I see.
-
How were they cleared? They weren't cleared by the order of filing the criminal proceedings. So how?
Please don't be so obtuse. They did not have to be cleared since there was absolutely not a shred of evidence to allow charges to be brought against them.
Amaral's investigation got it wrong from start to finish. But you know all this already.
-
Please don't be so obtuse. They did not have to be cleared since there was absolutely not a shred of evidence to allow charges to be brought against them.
Amaral's investigation got it wrong from start to finish. But you know all this already.
Well, the PJ did botch the investigation. That could be why their wasn't a shred of evidence sufficient to bring charges. Not that there wasn't any evidence against the McCanns. Just that the PJ failed to recover it.
That would also explain why the police still can't find the abductor, as it happens.
-
Please don't be so obtuse. They did not have to be cleared since there was absolutely not a shred of evidence to allow charges to be brought against them.
Amaral's investigation got it wrong from start to finish. But you know all this already.
So why were they so keen to claim, they had been cleared if they didn't need to?
-
So why were they so keen to claim, they had been cleared if they didn't need to?
Because some idiot wrote a book accusing them of committing a serious crime and had it published the day after they were dropped as suspects, that’s why. It doesn’t take too much intelligence to work it out but maybe it’s not obvious unless you have a degree of empathy and understanding.
-
Because some idiot wrote a book accusing them of committing a serious crime and had it published the day after they were dropped as suspects, that’s why. It doesn’t take too much intelligence to work it out but maybe it’s not obvious unless you have a degree of empathy and understanding.
Talk about having to state the obvious!
-
The final police report clears Gerry of being Smithman, does it not?
Further on this issue, the testimony of MARTIN SMITH was considered, pages 1606 and following, reporting the sighting of an individual carrying a child, in one of the streets that lead to the beach. It was said that the child could be MADELEINE McCANN, although it was never peremptorily stated. Some time later, the witness alleged that, by its stance, the individual who carried the child could be GERALD McCANN, which was concluded when he saw him descending the stairs from an airplane, pages 2871, 3991 and following and 4135 and following. It was established that at the time that was being mentioned, GERALD McCANN was sitting at the table, in the Tapas Restaurant.
-
Because some idiot wrote a book accusing them of committing a serious crime and had it published the day after they were dropped as suspects, that’s why. It doesn’t take too much intelligence to work it out but maybe it’s not obvious unless you have a degree of empathy and understanding.
I can think of another reason.
-
Because some idiot wrote a book accusing them of committing a serious crime and had it published the day after they were dropped as suspects, that’s why. It doesn’t take too much intelligence to work it out but maybe it’s not obvious unless you have a degree of empathy and understanding.
Dropped as suspects yes. Cleared no.
-
Dropped as suspects yes. Cleared no.
Cleared to all but the most bitter and pedantic, yes.
-
What is the actual difference between dropping someone as a suspect and clearing them as a suspect? Is one a vertical move, the other horizontal?
-
Says the person who gives credence to and promotes the fantasies of self-appointed psychics and those who have a completely unrealistic view of history. Who needs detectives when the answers lie within the websites of the lunatic fringe, eh Sadie? I live in the real world.
Unless I have specified doubt otherwise, all the history I use is bonafide. Certain parts, being actual words and facts from The Bible, are referenced by others.
It is factual that Matt James is correct in some things that he shows us on his blog, but you need the sensitivity and specialized background knowledge to understand him. I am still learning, but understanding more. Sorry if you can't understand any of his Tarots and blogs, so choose to undermine him.
As for Brian Ladd and his Dreams, some pertinent things have shown themselves including a dream where he dreams about two people, one of whom has the initials WS, same as WonderfulSpam. Does anyone have the image of this dream to post on here please? We could then share ideas about who Brians WS actually is and who the other might be, if wished.
Who needs detectives, you ask? Well we certainly don't need inferior/phoney detectives spewing lies as witnessed with certain of Amarals PJ / allies. Seems that you are prepared to accept these lies; and even promote them?
I will say that I am of the opinion that the vast majority of Amarals PJ worked their socks off trying to get to the truth. To me, it seems that they were almost held back by an invisible hand.
Was that Amaral or was he just a paid puppet? Or am I imagining it?
As for you; I ask myself, Why?
Why are you hiding the truth by promoting untruth?
There has to be a reason. All in my opinion.
-
Anyway. I'm glad to see you are still around Mr Davel. Hadn't seen you here so long I was starting to wonder if you hadn't had personal issues. Happy Ney Year.
Are you in league with Myster (Ret Sym) perchance? Are you part of it?
I have noticed things and WILL support Davel if he wishes.
I am being quite seriously privately abused as well.
-
Are you in league with Myster (Ret Sym) perchance? Are you part of it?
I have noticed things and WILL support Davel if he wishes.
I am being quite seriously privately abused as well.
I just noted his absence from the forum is all. There's only about seven of us regular members left, so when one drops out, can't help but notice really. When it does happen, I sometimes start to wonder if there hasn't been a terrible accident, or even an abduction.
-
What is the actual difference between dropping someone as a suspect and clearing them as a suspect? Is one a vertical move, the other horizontal?
Telling the press you are cleared is propaganda. Arguing it in court means it needs a factual basis, which it didn't have.
-
Telling the press you are cleared is propaganda. Arguing it in court means it needs a factual basis, which it didn't have.
You credit the McCanns with have far more power over the press than they actually have IMO. When the McCanns and Murat had their status as arguidos removed it was interpreted and reported internationally as both parties having been cleared. The McCanns did not need issue a press statement demanding that the media refer to them as cleared. It is perfectly acceptable and understandable to refer to both parties as cleared of suspicion. It is a fact. They had been and to this day remain clear of suspicion. I know it’s hard for you to come to terms with, but that is your problem to deal with, no one in the real world really gives a toss if the word is cleared or dropped, so try and get over it.
-
The final police report clears Gerry of being Smithman, does it not?
Further on this issue, the testimony of MARTIN SMITH was considered, pages 1606 and following, reporting the sighting of an individual carrying a child, in one of the streets that lead to the beach. It was said that the child could be MADELEINE McCANN, although it was never peremptorily stated. Some time later, the witness alleged that, by its stance, the individual who carried the child could be GERALD McCANN, which was concluded when he saw him descending the stairs from an airplane, pages 2871, 3991 and following and 4135 and following. It was established that at the time that was being mentioned, GERALD McCANN was sitting at the table, in the Tapas Restaurant.
Gerry was cleared of being Smithman.
-
Are you in league with Myster (Ret Sym) perchance? Are you part of it?
I have noticed things and WILL support Davel if he wishes.
I am being quite seriously privately abused as well.
I know something you don't know!... the name of Madeleine's latest sprog. Sorry, can't reveal it, but I've been in touch with OG to pass on my findings in a special lavender-coloured folder to keep yours company on their bookshelf-cum-shrine.
-
WARNING!
I don't often get involved in the discussions but today a member posted a fake news item credited to the Sun newspaper.
Such conduct is totally unacceptable and if repeated will result in a suspension for the member who posted it.
Admin
-
Finally admitted defeat.
The McCanns were given the right to lodge an appeal – but the Mirror can now reveal they have admitted defeat. The three-month appeal time limit has expired and the case is now listed as “definitif” – final – on the ECHR system.
There was no compensation or costs order made, although Kate and Gerry still face a massive legal bill.
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/madeleine-mccanns-parents-admit-defeat-28942384
-
Finally admitted defeat.
The McCanns were given the right to lodge an appeal – but the Mirror can now reveal they have admitted defeat. The three-month appeal time limit has expired and the case is now listed as “definitif” – final – on the ECHR system.
There was no compensation or costs order made, although Kate and Gerry still face a massive legal bill.
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/madeleine-mccanns-parents-admit-defeat-28942384
8()(((@#
-
There is no suggestion of any wrong doing by The McCanns.
-
There is no suggestion of any wrong doing by The McCanns.
Who said there was, this is about the failed attempt at the ECHR, where's the resident expert ,Davel.
-
There is no suggestion of any wrong doing by The McCanns.
Well they were wrong to pursue a case against Amaral & Portugal.
They got that wrong.
-
Who said there was, this is about the failed attempt at the ECHR, where's the resident expert ,Davel.
He reappeared when the hope of a final appeal was raised, but obviously the McCanns have finally accepted that they can't win this case.
I was reading the Appeal Court judgement which overturned the injunction in October 2010. It was interesting to see that it mentioned things that were later repeated by both the Supreme Court judges and those of the ECHR. Things such as the fact that TOTL was based on the PJ files, and that the McCanns had limited their right to privacy by making use of the media. An interesting read.
http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/court_docs.htm
-
Who said there was, this is about the failed attempt at the ECHR, where's the resident expert ,Davel.
The ECHR said that there were none. You left that bit out.
-
Finally admitted defeat.
The McCanns were given the right to lodge an appeal – but the Mirror can now reveal they have admitted defeat. The three-month appeal time limit has expired and the case is now listed as “definitif” – final – on the ECHR system.
There was no compensation or costs order made, although Kate and Gerry still face a massive legal bill.
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/madeleine-mccanns-parents-admit-defeat-28942384
Amazing. Something has finally reached a conclusion
-
The ECHR said that there were none. You left that bit out.
I saw no such comment by the ECHR. All I saw was that the investigation was discontinued for lack of evidence.
-
I saw no such comment by the ECHR. All I saw was that the investigation was discontinued for lack of evidence.
Golly Gosh. Lack of Evidence.
-
He reappeared when the hope of a final appeal was raised, but obviously the McCanns have finally accepted that they can't win this case.
I was reading the Appeal Court judgement which overturned the injunction in October 2010. It was interesting to see that it mentioned things that were later repeated by both the Supreme Court judges and those of the ECHR. Things such as the fact that TOTL was based on the PJ files, and that the McCanns had limited their right to privacy by making use of the media. An interesting read.
http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/court_docs.htm
They should never have gone after GA in the first place. The only people it seems that made his book successful were the mcs.
Goncalo de Sousa Amaral,
Guerra e Paz, Editores, SA
VC - Valentim de Carvalho - Filmes, Audiovisuais, SA and
TVI - Televisao Independente, SA
All of them based on the right of freedom of expression of thought that is constitutionally consecrated and furthermore the fact that the statements and facts that were published in the book are the mere reproduction of solid data that is part of the investigation that was started at due time, and that said statements and facts are even part of the investigation's archiving dispatch that was signed by a Prosecutor of the Portuguese Republic.
A new sentence was issued, which basically upheld the sentence that had been issued before and that granted the request.
-
Amazing. Something has finally reached a conclusion
Yes, & I'm sure the McCanns will be very pleased to finally have some closure on the matter.
-
They should never have gone after GA in the first place. The only people it seems that made his book successful were the mcs.
Goncalo de Sousa Amaral,
Guerra e Paz, Editores, SA
VC - Valentim de Carvalho - Filmes, Audiovisuais, SA and
TVI - Televisao Independente, SA
All of them based on the right of freedom of expression of thought that is constitutionally consecrated and furthermore the fact that the statements and facts that were published in the book are the mere reproduction of solid data that is part of the investigation that was started at due time, and that said statements and facts are even part of the investigation's archiving dispatch that was signed by a Prosecutor of the Portuguese Republic.
A new sentence was issued, which basically upheld the sentence that had been issued before and that granted the request.
It's a prime example imo of the heart ruling the head. One reason for undertaking this case has been repeated endlessly; that the book harmed the search for Madeleine. No evidence upholding that belief was able to be found by the McCanns and their lawyers, however.
FACTS NOT PROVEN
n) that the attention of the media and people in general had decreased with the publication of the defendant Goncalo Amaral's book .
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=6307.0 page 32
Court cases can't be won by expressing beliefs. Evidence is needed.
-
The ECHR said that there were none. You left that bit out.
Nope, the ECHR never said that, there is no quote tags around that sentence so its not attributed to any one bar the reporter.
-
Who said there was, this is about the failed attempt at the ECHR, where's the resident expert ,Davel.
There was no appeal. There was therefore no 'failed' attempt.
-
There was no appeal. There was therefore no 'failed' attempt.
The title of the thread is appeal to the ECHR which was started in Sept 2017,judgement was in sept 2022 final communique is Dec 2022 ,they lost, they failed.
(https://i.imgur.com/rQ9ua8Y.png)
-
They should never have gone after GA in the first place. The only people it seems that made his book successful were the mcs.
Goncalo de Sousa Amaral,
Guerra e Paz, Editores, SA
VC - Valentim de Carvalho - Filmes, Audiovisuais, SA and
TVI - Televisao Independente, SA
All of them based on the right of freedom of expression of thought that is constitutionally consecrated and furthermore the fact that the statements and facts that were published in the book are the mere reproduction of solid data that is part of the investigation that was started at due time, and that said statements and facts are even part of the investigation's archiving dispatch that was signed by a Prosecutor of the Portuguese Republic.
A new sentence was issued, which basically upheld the sentence that had been issued before and that granted the request.
Quite right according to sceptics!
They should just have continued allowing Amaral to say whatever nonsense he felt like coming up with about them and most of all they should just have thrown in the towel and agreed with Amaral to give up searching for their daughter.
Who cares about the crimes no-one was prepared to investigate - certainly not sceptics and certainly not Amaral.
-
It's a prime example imo of the heart ruling the head. One reason for undertaking this case has been repeated endlessly; that the book harmed the search for Madeleine. No evidence upholding that belief was able to be found by the McCanns and their lawyers, however.
FACTS NOT PROVEN
n) that the attention of the media and people in general had decreased with the publication of the defendant Goncalo Amaral's book .
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=6307.0 page 32
Court cases can't be won by expressing beliefs. Evidence is needed.
That's a bit of an obtuse statement to make when we have just watched one being won without a shred of evidence but only the opinion and beliefs of a cop with the right to freedom of expression.
-
Quite right according to sceptics!
They should just have continued allowing Amaral to say whatever nonsense he felt like coming up with about them and most of all they should just have thrown in the towel and agreed with Amaral to give up searching for their daughter.
Who cares about the crimes no-one was prepared to investigate - certainly not sceptics and certainly not Amaral.
What are you talking about? What are these crimes you imagine no-one was prepared to investigate?
-
That's a bit of an obtuse statement to make when we have just watched one being won without a shred of evidence but only the opinion and beliefs of a cop with the right to freedom of expression.
Well, it wasn't just his beliefs, was it. It was the conclusion reached by the investigative team & signed off by Tavares Almeida. This wasn't something dreamt up by Amaral. Eddie barked his head off at all things McCann, Kate clammed up under interview & the team of investigators drew the most reasonable inference from that.
-
Quite right according to sceptics!
They should just have continued allowing Amaral to say whatever nonsense he felt like coming up with about them and most of all they should just have thrown in the towel and agreed with Amaral to give up searching for their daughter.
Who cares about the crimes no-one was prepared to investigate - certainly not sceptics and certainly not Amaral.
Well, it wasn't nonsense was it....otherwise, TOTL would have been banned.
-
That's a bit of an obtuse statement to make when we have just watched one being won without a shred of evidence but only the opinion and beliefs of a cop with the right to freedom of expression.
Amaral didn't breach any of the McCann's human rights. All he did was express his opinion, just as the McCann's did.
-
Well, it wasn't nonsense was it....otherwise, TOTL would have been banned.
Any word of Amaral publishing his most recent book "Maddie: Enough of Lies!" for sale in English bookshops?
-
Amaral didn't breach any of the McCann's human rights. All he did was express his opinion, just as the McCann's did.
He did promulgate quite a bit of nonsense about them while expressing opinions about them eagerly expanded upon by the Portuguese media.
'Kate McCann was MI5 spy': Portuguese newspaper makes crazy allegation that missing Madeleine's mother was member of security services
28 April 2019
Snip
A McCan family spokesperson, addressing the claims, said: 'These are absolutely absurd and ridiculous allegations, which Madeleine's parents are certain no one in their right mind would even consider believing.
'It is unmitigated garble and yet more nonsense they are having to endure at a very painful and difficult time for them.'
_________________________________________________________________________
Disgraced ex-Portuguese police chief Goncalo Amaral, who features heavily in the new Netflix documentary on the Madeleine McCann case, claimed last year MI5 spies helped to cover up her death and disappearance.
Amaral, the original lead investigator in the case before his October 2007 sacking for criticising the British police, said British secret agents 'for sure had an involvement' in an Australian documentary which aired last April.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6968571/Portuguese-newspaper-makes-crazy-claim-missing-Maddies-mother-MI5-spy.html
-
Would this not be better moved to the 'Lets slag Amaral off' thread as it has nothing to do with this ECHR topic ?
-
Would this not be better moved to the 'Lets slag Amaral off' thread as it has nothing to do with this ECHR topic ?
You don't have to slag off Amaral if you don't want to.
-
You don't have to slag off Amaral if you don't want to.
I certainly wouldn't do it on this thread, which in case people have forgotten is about McCann and their ECHR appeal.
-
He reappeared when the hope of a final appeal was raised, but obviously the McCanns have finally accepted that they can't win this case.
I was reading the Appeal Court judgement which overturned the injunction in October 2010. It was interesting to see that it mentioned things that were later repeated by both the Supreme Court judges and those of the ECHR. Things such as the fact that TOTL was based on the PJ files, and that the McCanns had limited their right to privacy by making use of the media. An interesting read.
http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/court_docs.htm
I read back some of the posts on the start of this thread out of curiosity today, & alas, the likes of poor AlicePurjorick & stephen were still around way back when.
-
He did promulgate quite a bit of nonsense about them while expressing opinions about them eagerly expanded upon by the Portuguese media.
'Kate McCann was MI5 spy': Portuguese newspaper makes crazy allegation that missing Madeleine's mother was member of security services
28 April 2019
Snip
A McCan family spokesperson, addressing the claims, said: 'These are absolutely absurd and ridiculous allegations, which Madeleine's parents are certain no one in their right mind would even consider believing.
'It is unmitigated garble and yet more nonsense they are having to endure at a very painful and difficult time for them.'
_________________________________________________________________________
Disgraced ex-Portuguese police chief Goncalo Amaral, who features heavily in the new Netflix documentary on the Madeleine McCann case, claimed last year MI5 spies helped to cover up her death and disappearance.
Amaral, the original lead investigator in the case before his October 2007 sacking for criticising the British police, said British secret agents 'for sure had an involvement' in an Australian documentary which aired last April.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6968571/Portuguese-newspaper-makes-crazy-claim-missing-Maddies-mother-MI5-spy.html
This didn't feature in their doomed case against Amaral did it?
-
On reflection, I think the McCanns have achieved their goal of keeping Madeleine's case in the public eye, despite their ultimate failure in ECHR. When they initiated the court action I doubt anyone would have believed just how protracted it would become.
IMO the McCanns perhaps took the harder route of making their case more about Madeleine and the harm they perceived Amaral's book was causing the search as opposed to a concentrated libel claim regarding all the slurs and insinuations against themselves. The former justified payment for legal expenses from the OFM Fund, the latter wouldn't have.
Assuming Brueckner is convicted of murdering Madeleine, the ECHR judgement will not bode well for either Amaral or Portuguese State imo. Their justice system, backed by the the administrative authorities, has allowed Amaral to be very vocal in various media during the last 14yrs, without restraint, about his belief the McCanns are criminally culpable. A Brueckner conviction will not sit well with the Portuguese public.
-
On reflection, I think the McCanns have achieved their goal of keeping Madeleine's case in the public eye, despite their ultimate failure in ECHR. When they initiated the court action I doubt anyone would have believed just how protracted it would become.
IMO the McCanns perhaps took the harder route of making their case more about Madeleine and the harm they perceived Amaral's book was causing the search as opposed to a concentrated libel claim regarding all the slurs and insinuations against themselves. The former justified payment for legal expenses from the OFM Fund, the latter wouldn't have.
Assuming Brueckner is convicted of murdering Madeleine, the ECHR judgement will not bode well for either Amaral or Portuguese State imo. Their justice system, backed by the the administrative authorities, has allowed Amaral to be very vocal in various media during the last 14yrs, without restraint, about his belief the McCanns are criminally culpable. A Brueckner conviction will not sit well with the Portuguese public.
At this moment in time I think the “victory” is a Pyrrhic one as much for Amaral as it has been for the McCanns. It is a course of action they had no choice but to take if they were to keep Madeleine’s case in the public eye.
Indeed as you have pointed out, who could have envisaged it taking up so much precious time. Particularly bearing in mind that when the McCanns were forced to institute legal action, they were the only ones actively looking for Madeleine and they were fiercely fighting her corner against the negativity engendered by Amaral.
“Gerry has been quoted as saying: 'I'm sure it's a very small minority of people who spend their time doing it, but it has totally inhibited what we do.' ”
At that stage Amaral had written the first of his books, had taken part in his first documentary based on his book, had a media career forged on accusing Madeleine’s parents of criminality which continues even today.
But the McCanns proved their point and did the impossible of getting Madeleine's case opened. That is some feat and some victory in the face of the "inhibitions" visited on them.
I think that already the genie is out of the bottle as far as the turn events have taken and I think that even if Brueckner’s saga as far as Madeleine’s disappearance is concerned never sees the inside of a courtroom, the genie will stay out as far as the Portuguese people are concerned.
Proud Portuguese institutions have been found wanting as the people have watched the example before them and I think there are those whose high popularity ratings might take a tumble as a direct result.
-
On reflection, I think the McCanns have achieved their goal of keeping Madeleine's case in the public eye, despite their ultimate failure in ECHR. When they initiated the court action I doubt anyone would have believed just how protracted it would become.
IMO the McCanns perhaps took the harder route of making their case more about Madeleine and the harm they perceived Amaral's book was causing the search as opposed to a concentrated libel claim regarding all the slurs and insinuations against themselves. The former justified payment for legal expenses from the OFM Fund, the latter wouldn't have.
Assuming Brueckner is convicted of murdering Madeleine, the ECHR judgement will not bode well for either Amaral or Portuguese State imo. Their justice system, backed by the the administrative authorities, has allowed Amaral to be very vocal in various media during the last 14yrs, without restraint, about his belief the McCanns are criminally culpable. A Brueckner conviction will not sit well with the Portuguese public.
Thanks Misty. Now I know why Kate McCann has repeated endlessly that Amaral's book harmed the search for Madeleine. Even though it wasn't true, it justifies using Madeleine's Fund.
-
Thanks Misty. Now I know why Kate McCann has repeated endlessly that Amaral's book harmed the search for Madeleine. Even though it wasn't true, it justifies using Madeleine's Fund.
Cherry Picking. Again.
-
Cherry Picking. Again.
Or noticing something which explains why a statement which couldn't be proved to be true in 2015 is still being repeated.
-
I read back some of the posts on the start of this thread out of curiosity today, & alas, the likes of poor AlicePurjorick & stephen were still around way back when.
Quite a few have moved or passed on.
-
On reflection, I think the McCanns have achieved their goal of keeping Madeleine's case in the public eye, despite their ultimate failure in ECHR. When they initiated the court action I doubt anyone would have believed just how protracted it would become.
IMO the McCanns perhaps took the harder route of making their case more about Madeleine and the harm they perceived Amaral's book was causing the search as opposed to a concentrated libel claim regarding all the slurs and insinuations against themselves. The former justified payment for legal expenses from the OFM Fund, the latter wouldn't have.
Assuming Brueckner is convicted of murdering Madeleine, the ECHR judgement will not bode well for either Amaral or Portuguese State imo. Their justice system, backed by the the administrative authorities, has allowed Amaral to be very vocal in various media during the last 14yrs, without restraint, about his belief the McCanns are criminally culpable. A Brueckner conviction will not sit well with the Portuguese public.
Never assume it makes an ass out of you and me, now what if CB is not convicted then the opposite has to be true.
-
Thanks Misty. Now I know why Kate McCann has repeated endlessly that Amaral's book harmed the search for Madeleine. Even though it wasn't true, it justifies using Madeleine's Fund.
You are using Misty's opinion to try and establish something as a fact, when it is only opinion. Moreover, you are twisting Misty's words to suggest that the parents deliberately promulgated a falsehood in order to access fund money. That strikes me as libellous and just a little bit goady.
-
As I understand it the various stages of the civil court case were fought over points of law, not who was guilty or not guilty of a criminal act.
-
At this moment in time I think the “victory” is a Pyrrhic one as much for Amaral as it has been for the McCanns. It is a course of action they had no choice but to take if they were to keep Madeleine’s case in the public eye.
Indeed as you have pointed out, who could have envisaged it taking up so much precious time. Particularly bearing in mind that when the McCanns were forced to institute legal action, they were the only ones actively looking for Madeleine and they were fiercely fighting her corner against the negativity engendered by Amaral.
“Gerry has been quoted as saying: 'I'm sure it's a very small minority of people who spend their time doing it, but it has totally inhibited what we do.' ”
At that stage Amaral had written the first of his books, had taken part in his first documentary based on his book, had a media career forged on accusing Madeleine’s parents of criminality which continues even today.
But the McCanns proved their point and did the impossible of getting Madeleine's case opened. That is some feat and some victory in the face of the "inhibitions" visited on them.
I think that already the genie is out of the bottle as far as the turn events have taken and I think that even if Brueckner’s saga as far as Madeleine’s disappearance is concerned never sees the inside of a courtroom, the genie will stay out as far as the Portuguese people are concerned.
Proud Portuguese institutions have been found wanting as the people have watched the example before them and I think there are those whose high popularity ratings might take a tumble as a direct result.
The Portuguese Judiciary can be proud of it's response to this case. They identified the important facts and reached the correct conclusions. Their performance was ratified by the expert ECHR judges.
Regardless of future developments Amaral did not harm the search for Madeleine, he did not damage the McCann's reputation and neither he nor the Portuguese authorities damaged their right to a fair trial.
-
Never assume it makes an ass out of you and me, now what if CB is not convicted then the opposite has to be true.
No it doesn't as my response in support of Misty's thoughtful and erudite post would tend to support.
-
You are using Misty's opinion to try and establish something as a fact, when it is only opinion. Moreover, you are twisting Misty's words to suggest that the parents deliberately promulgated a falsehood in order to access fund money. That strikes me as libellous and just a little bit goady.
Oh, hello! Have you been on holiday with Mr Gray? It is a fact that Kate McCann has repeated and is still repeating a statement which she can't prove is true. Not once has she said that it's merely her opinion.
-
As I understand it the various stages of the civil court case were fought over points of law, not who was guilty or not guilty of a criminal act.
Most civil court cases are a complete enigma as far as the uninitiated are concerned, the Portuguese one we know about raised the bar on that statement but in the long term really doesn't matter anymore.
Miraculously the McCanns achieved what they set out to do and that was to have the investigation into Madeleine's disappearance reopened.
I think that is their vindication.
-
Oh, hello! Have you been on holiday with Mr Gray? It is a fact that Kate McCann has repeated and is still repeating a statement which she can't prove is true. Not once has she said that it's merely her opinion.
More goading from you. You have deliberately misunderstood what I wrote. I suggest you go back and re-read my post and when you have something sensible to say to me feel free to try again.
-
Most civil court cases are a complete enigma as far as the uninitiated are concerned, the Portuguese one we know about raised the bar on that statement but in the long term really doesn't matter anymore.
Miraculously the McCanns achieved what they set out to do and that was to have the investigation into Madeleine's disappearance reopened.
I think that is their vindication.
By going the litigation route ?
-
The Portuguese Judiciary can be proud of it's response to this case. They identified the important facts and reached the correct conclusions. Their performance was ratified by the expert ECHR judges.
Regardless of future developments Amaral did not harm the search for Madeleine, he did not damage the McCann's reputation and neither he nor the Portuguese authorities damaged their right to a fair trial.
I think you may have followed a different trial from the one I did. Amaral and Portugal ultimately may have won the case hands down on the face of it, but I think there is a broader picture here which does nothing to enhance the reputation of either.
The McCann's have been vindicated in the first instance not only by the opening of the criminal case investigating Madeleine's disappearance which had been shut down while much of the evidence was misinterpreted or ignored.
But by the path followed and the evidence which was brought into the light as a result the case being properly investigated at long last.
All of Amaral's opinions and Portugal's support since 2007 of those opinions, are brought into question by the simple expediency of investigators having followed the evidence. Amaral's opinions sent Madeleine's case in the wrong direction while the McCanns and the actions they were forced to take in support of their missing daughter have ultimately been vindicated.
Funny old world isn't it.
-
By going the litigation route ?
They did not go the "litigation route" until they were forced to.
-
It's true that while Amaral won the right to publish his opinion, the fact is that no one who matters in this case (ie the judiciary, the police, etc) takes his opinion remotely seriously. So - in the end the McCanns opinion won out, those that matter are convinced Madeleine was abducted by a stranger, whilst Amaral himself just looks silly, in the same way that so many other conspiracy theorists do (if not to themselves and their followers, then certainly to the rest of the world). So let's leave him revel in his ill gotten gains, unfair though it may seem to any right thinking person, and let's forget him. He is Yesterday's Man, big(gish) news at the end of the decade before last, now not so much.
-
I think you may have followed a different trial from the one I did. Amaral and Portugal ultimately may have won the case hands down on the face of it, but I think there is a broader picture here which does nothing to enhance the reputation of either.
The McCann's have been vindicated in the first instance not only by the opening of the criminal case investigating Madeleine's disappearance which had been shut down while much of the evidence was misinterpreted or ignored.
But by the path followed and the evidence which was brought into the light as a result the case being properly investigated at long last.
All of Amaral's opinions and Portugal's support since 2007 of those opinions, are brought into question by the simple expediency of investigators having followed the evidence. Amaral's opinions sent Madeleine's case in the wrong direction while the McCanns and the actions they were forced to take in support of their missing daughter have ultimately been vindicated.
Funny old world isn't it.
The courts reached the correct decision in my opinion. They addressed the issues raised, no more and no less. Even if someone else is ultimately found guilty of harming Madeleine McCann, it won't change the fact that the courts were right.
-
More goading from you. You have deliberately misunderstood what I wrote. I suggest you go back and re-read my post and when you have something sensible to say to me feel free to try again.
According to you I frequently misunderstand what you post. All I can say is that you should make your meanings clearer (unless, of course I'm not misunderstanding you)
-
According to you I frequently misunderstand what you post. All I can say is that you should make your meanings clearer (unless, of course I'm not misunderstanding you)
Correct - you are not misunderstanding me, but choosing to twist what I wrote. It's a tactic of yours I have frequently observed.
-
The courts reached the correct decision in my opinion. They addressed the issues raised, no more and no less. Even if someone else is ultimately found guilty of harming Madeleine McCann, it won't change the fact that the courts were right.
You and I differ fundamentally on what is right and what is wrong.
Attempting to destroy reputations based on nothing but opinion unsupported by any evidence at all is definitely beyond the pale and should be intolerable in any decent society.
Almost as much as is making a lucrative career based on the case of a missing child whose case you botched.
How on earth do you arrive at the conclusion the "courts were right" if Amaral's opinion is proved fundamentally wrong should as you suggest, another be found guilty of harming Madeleine.
That really just does not make sense.
-
Correct - you are not misunderstanding me, but choosing to twist what I wrote. It's a tactic of yours I have frequently observed.
Please stop accusing me of wrongdoing, it's very boring.
-
You and I differ fundamentally on what is right and what is wrong.
Attempting to destroy reputations based on nothing but opinion unsupported by any evidence at all is definitely beyond the pale and should be intolerable in any decent society.
Almost as much as is making a lucrative career based on the case of a missing child whose case you botched.
How on earth do you arrive at the conclusion the "courts were right" if Amaral's opinion is proved fundamentally wrong should as you suggest, another be found guilty of harming Madeleine.
That really just does not make sense.
We also differ in our understanding of legal processes. The Portuguese courts were not examining whether Amaral's opinions were correct or not, just whether he'd breached the McCann's rights by expressing them.
-
We also differ in our understanding of legal processes. The Portuguese courts were not examining whether Amaral's opinions were correct or not, just whether he'd breached the McCann's rights by expressing them.
Well what ever it was, its done and dusted now, it'll sink in in the end.
-
In Portugal anyone can tell lies about whoever they want to. Why am I not surprised?
-
Please stop accusing me of wrongdoing, it's very boring.
Stop twisting what I write and I will have no cause to pick you up on it when you do.
-
Well what ever it was, its done and dusted now, it'll sink in in the end.
I really wouldn't count on it. There's still genuine expectation around here that Brueckner will one day be charged @)(++(*
-
I really wouldn't count on it. There's still genuine expectation around here that Brueckner will one day be charged @)(++(*
Personally I hope he is never charged and that Madeleine is found alive.
-
Personally I hope he is never charged and that Madeleine is found alive.
So do I. But someone took her away somehow.
-
I really wouldn't count on it. There's still genuine expectation around here that Brueckner will one day be charged @)(++(*
Whether he is or isn't has no bearing at all on the rulings of the Portuguese Courts and the ECHR.
-
Whether he is or isn't has no bearing at all on the rulings of the Portuguese Courts and the ECHR.
But it won't half make Portugal look stupid. If they don't already. Which they do, obviously.
-
Personally I hope he is never charged and that Madeleine is found alive.
I don't think that likely, but without a body, one can never be sure just what crime was committed that night
-
But it won't half make Portugal look stupid. If they don't already. Which they do, obviously.
According to whom?
-
I don't think that likely, but without a body, one can never be sure just what crime was committed that night
Abduction. It was a criminal act by a stranger, as explained today by VS's desperate appeal to authority.
-
Personally I hope he is never charged and that Madeleine is found alive.
What?? Even if he was responsible for abducting her in the first place?!
-
But it won't half make Portugal look stupid. If they don't already. Which they do, obviously.
Only in some eyes.
-
Aye, mainly the jaundiced eyes of p'd off supporters
-
Aye, mainly the jaundiced eyes of p'd off supporters
They'll find a way to justify (to themselves) the McCann's crushing loss.
-
They'll find a way to justify (to themselves) the McCann's crushing loss.
Are The McCanns crushed? I don't think so.
-
They'll find a way to justify (to themselves) the McCann's crushing loss.
Losing deliberately to garner publicity - isn't that the current excuse ?
Whatever I can imaging McCann being 'furious' about it all. Not the sort to accept defeat easily. What a shame @)(++(*
-
They'll find a way to justify (to themselves) the McCann's crushing loss.
According to you the McCanns mounted a massive propaganda campaign to convince the authorities that Madeleine had been abducted and that they knew nothing about her disappearance. Looks like they won that one doesn’t it? They are not under investigation and the police in two countries (and Portugal doing as their told) have made it clear that they are working on the abduction thesis, while Amaral’s theory resides in the remaindered book section where it belongs. The only crushing loss the McCanns continue to experience to this day is the loss of their daughter Madeleine.
-
Are The McCanns crushed? I don't think so.
Some sad bitter people like to “imaging” so @)(++(*
-
The seethe here is delicious.
-
Thanks Misty. Now I know why Kate McCann has repeated endlessly that Amaral's book harmed the search for Madeleine. Even though it wasn't true, it justifies using Madeleine's Fund.
Well, well, well whood da thunk it. lost cause and lost case. Well done those who KNEW they would win. giggles
Yes the fund... empty?
no millions for the perfect parents who done nothing wrong.
-
Well, well, well whood da thunk it. lost cause and lost case. Well done those who KNEW they would win. giggles
Yes the fund... empty?
no millions for the perfect parents who done nothing wrong.
Amateur lawyers , every one.
-
Well, well, well whood da thunk it. lost cause and lost case. Well done those who KNEW they would win. giggles
Yes the fund... empty?
no millions for the perfect parents who done nothing wrong.
One wouldn't want them to benefit from their incompetence and inadequacies .
-
Amateur lawyers , every one.
Let's wait and see, shall we? &%5y%
He who laughs last, laughs longest
But truly, this shouldn't be a case of one side scoring against the other side: This should be us all working together to find missing children and bring them home again.
And unfortunately the perps must be aprehended. I don't much like jail but they have to be stopped and, I guess, suitably punished
-
Let's wait and see, shall we? &%5y%
He who laughs last, laughs longest
But truly, this shouldn't be a case of one side scoring against the other side: This should be us all working together to find missing children and bring them home again.
And unfortunately the perps must be aprehended. I don't much like jail but they have to be stopped and, I guess, suitably punished
The best outcome would be finding Madeleine alive and unharmed. I fear this a forlorn hope however.
-
One wouldn't want them to benefit from their incompetence and inadequacies .
One wouldn't want victims of crime to suffer additional distress due to the unnecessary words or actions of the judiciary either.
-
One wouldn't want victims of crime to suffer additional distress due to the unnecessary words or actions of the judiciary either.
Which victims of crime?
-
One wouldn't want victims of crime to suffer additional distress due to the unnecessary words or actions of the judiciary either.
Define unnecessary in this context please.
-
Which victims of crime?
The McCanns of course, their daughter was taken in a criminal act by a stranger according to the police, remember?
-
The McCanns of course, their daughter was taken in a criminal act by a stranger according to the police, remember?
I remember DCI Redwood offering up a word salad about belief in the opportunity of Madeleine being taken in a criminal act by a stranger.
-
DCI Redwood :
"We have conducted a forensic analysis of the timeline & there is clearly opportunity there for Madeleine McCann to have been removed from that apartment alive, & it is our belief, as experienced investigators, on the evidence, that um, that, that, you know that that is a criminal act that, you know, that has been undertaken by a stranger, so from that & there are other cases around the world as you know, where many years later people have been taken & been found alive."
https://youtu.be/-R_RjWWCKEA?t=169
-
Mark Rowley (now Head of the Met) confirming that the McCanns are victims of a crime:
"The parents’ involvement: that was dealt with at the time by the original investigation by the Portuguese.
“We’re happy that’s completely dealt with and there is no reason whatsoever to reopen that or start rumours that’s a line of investigation."
“The McCanns are the parents of a missing girl and we’re trying to get to the bottom of what happened.”
-
Mark Rowley (now Head of the Met) confirming that the McCanns are victims of a crime:
"The parents’ involvement: that was dealt with at the time by the original investigation by the Portuguese.
“We’re happy that’s completely dealt with and there is no reason whatsoever to reopen that or start rumours that’s a line of investigation."
“The McCanns are the parents of a missing girl and we’re trying to get to the bottom of what happened.”
Yes, the parents stopped cooperating with the Portuguese, so the case was archived & the crime, if any, remained undetermined. But that's all ancient history now. There is CONCRETE evidence Madeleine is dead & Wolters has solved the case.
-
Mark Rowley (now Head of the Met) confirming that the McCanns are victims of a crime:
"The parents’ involvement: that was dealt with at the time by the original investigation by the Portuguese.
“We’re happy that’s completely dealt with and there is no reason whatsoever to reopen that or start rumours that’s a line of investigation."
“The McCanns are the parents of a missing girl and we’re trying to get to the bottom of what happened.”
That might make sense if the Portuguese had been able to finish the original investigation. Their final diligence was to test the timeline, but they were prevented from doing that. So Operation Grange accepted and "forensically examined" a timeline which the Portuguese were not satisfied with.
-
That might make sense if the Portuguese had been able to finish the original investigation. Their final diligence was to test the timeline, but they were prevented from doing that. So Operation Grange accepted and "forensically examined" a timeline which the Portuguese were not satisfied with.
You asked who are the victims of crime - the McCanns are the victims of crime. You may think not, the people investigating the crime properly do. Whose opinion carries more weight? Hmmm...hard one....
-
That might make sense if the Portuguese had been able to finish the original investigation. Their final diligence was to test the timeline, but they were prevented from doing that. So Operation Grange accepted and "forensically examined" a timeline which the Portuguese were not satisfied with.
We are expected to believe that OG found evidence that Madeleine had been taken in a criminal act by a stranger.
Quite why this abduction evidence didn't lead them to Christian Brueckner is anyone's guess really.
-
You asked who are the victims of crime - the McCanns are the victims of crime. You may think not, the people investigating the crime properly do. Whose opinion carries more weight? Hmmm...hard one....
Eleven years investigating an abduction without finding the perp. Perhaps the investigators aren't doing it 'properly'? Placing faith in institutions doesn't always work. Some people found that out when they put their faith in the ECHR.
-
We are expected to believe that OG found evidence that Madeleine had been taken in a criminal act by a stranger.
Quite why this abduction evidence didn't lead them to Christian Brueckner is anyone's guess really.
That would be because he cunningly hid details of his phone number and presence in Praia da Luz that evening from the police.
-
Eleven years investigating an abduction without finding the perp. Perhaps the investigators aren't doing it 'properly'? Placing faith in institutions doesn't always work. Some people found that out when they put their faith in the ECHR.
Are you suggesting that the ECHR were wrong? What a bizarre statement. I am simply suggesting that those in FULL possession of the facts / evidence tend to be better placed to know what's what than those internet warriors who only have access to the files which only cover one year's worth of the investigation. If you think that's foolish of me, kindly state why.
-
That would be because he cunningly hid details of his phone number and presence in Praia da Luz that evening from the police.
His presence in Luz doesn't indicate anything anyway. He lived there. As far as evidence of abduction goes that doesn't sound especially concrete to me.
-
Are you suggesting that the ECHR were wrong? What a bizarre statement. I am simply suggesting that those in FULL possession of the facts / evidence tend to be better placed to know what's what than those internet warriors who only have access to the files which only cover one year's worth of the investigation. If you think that's foolish of me, kindly state why.
No, the ECHR weren't wrong. Although I'm sure there are people who think they were, just as there are people who think OG are right. It is those people who get it wrong.
-
Are you suggesting that the ECHR were wrong? What a bizarre statement. I am simply suggesting that those in FULL possession of the facts / evidence tend to be better placed to know what's what than those internet warriors who only have access to the files which only cover one year's worth of the investigation. If you think that's foolish of me, kindly state why.
Because the three expert investigative forces you pile all your faith into haven't presented a shred of tangible evidence that Madeleine was ever taken in a criminal act by a stranger, (excluding e-fits of (allegedly) Madeleine's father). Which begs the question, What evidence convinces you Madeleine was taken in a criminal act by a stranger? My idea for a new thread I think.
-
That would be because he cunningly hid details of his phone number and presence in Praia da Luz that evening from the police.
The phone number they can't prove is his?
-
The phone number they can't prove is his?
I understand BKA know that the number belonged to Brueckner. The issue was whether or not it was in his possession on the evening of May 3rd 2007.
Anyway, we digress from the thread topic which has no bearing on current investigations. SY & BKA are in possession of far more evidence than is visible to the public in the original PJ files.
-
I understand BKA know that the number belonged to Brueckner. The issue was whether or not it was in his possession on the evening of May 3rd 2007.
Anyway, we digress from the thread topic which has no bearing on current investigations. SY & BKA are in possession of far more evidence than is visible to the public in the original PJ files.
But it's still just an assumption, that the three expert investigative forces really do have actual, reliable evidence MM was taken in a strange act by a criminal. They could in fact have nothing at all really, & that would explain why they still can't solve the case.
-
No, the ECHR weren't wrong. Although I'm sure there are people who think they were, just as there are people who think OG are right. It is those people who get it wrong.
So I've got it wrong when I say that the police who have all the information and evidence in this case are treating it as abduction by a stranger and the parents as victims of crime, is that what you're trying to tell me??!
-
So I've got it wrong when I say that the police who have all the information and evidence in this case are treating it as abduction by a stranger and the parents as victims of crime, is that what you're trying to tell me??!
Oh no, that's what the police are doing all right. You're just believing them.
-
Oh no, that's what the police are doing all right. You're just believing them.
That doesn’t make sense. I said that’s what they are doing, whether I believe them or not is beside the point. The have all the info, evidence and expertise and they are treating this as a case of stranger abduction, hence to answer your earlier question (again) it is the McCanns who are being treated as victims of a crime. Now, we can go all around the houses again in another attempt by you to deflect from this very self-evident point or you can just accept it and stop arguing about nothing.
-
That doesn’t make sense. I said that’s what they are doing, whether I believe them or not is beside the point. The have all the info, evidence and expertise and they are treating this as a case of stranger abduction, hence to answer your earlier question (again) it is the McCanns who are being treated as victims of a crime. Now, we can go all around the houses again in another attempt by you to deflect from this very self-evident point or you can just accept it and stop arguing about nothing.
The police were brought in to investigate stranger abduction, which is why that's what they're doing.
-
Oh no, that's what the police are doing all right. You're just believing them.
VS is convinced the Police are convinced. Me, I'm unconvinced, due to the total absence of any objectively verifiable evidence Madeleine was taken in an act by strange criminals.
-
The police were brought in to investigate stranger abduction, which is why that's what they're doing.
Oh, so you do want to go around the houses again, I guessed as much.
Who are the victims of crime?
The McCanns.
Who says?
Those authorities in England and Germany who are investigating their daughter’s disappearance.
Like it or lump it.
-
Oh, so you do want to go around the houses again, I guessed as much.
Who are the victims of crime?
The McCanns.
Who says?
Those authorities in England and Germany who are investigating their daughter’s disappearance.
It's a disappearance now is it?
I thought they were supposed to be investigating an abduction?
-
VS is convinced the Police are convinced. Me, I'm unconvinced, due to the total absence of any objectively verifiable evidence Madeleine was taken in an act by strange criminals.
Apparently we have to believe what some police forces tell us. Not Portuguese ones, obviously.
-
Apparently we have to believe what some police forces tell us. Not Portuguese ones, obviously.
Yes, but I fear we have gone off on a tangent here. What we should be discussing is the McCanns appeal to the European Court of Human Rights. But it appears the court didn't find the McCanns very appealing after all.
-
Yes, but I fear we have gone off on a tangent here. What we should be discussing is the McCanns appeal to the European Court of Human Rights. But it appears the court didn't find the McCanns very appealing after all.
Perfectly understandable.
-
Apparently we have to believe what some police forces tell us. Not Portuguese ones, obviously.
You’re both incapable of reading and understanding what I wrote, obviously. Oh well, never mind. Incidentally you don’t seem to have a problem with the troll being convinced the McCanns murdered Madeleine despite to total absence of any verifiable evidence that they did. Funny that.
-
You’re both incapable of reading and understanding what I wrote, obviously. Oh well, never mind. Incidentally you don’t seem to have a problem with the troll being convinced the McCanns murdered Madeleine despite to total absence of any verifiable evidence that they did. Funny that.
Well, if the police can believe in a stranger abduction without any verifiable evidence what's to stop others forming opinions?
-
Well, if the police can believe in a stranger abduction without any verifiable evidence what's to stop others forming opinions?
The problem with your logic is that you assume that the police only have access to the same limited information that you are privy to. You seem to believe that there has been no new evidence gathered since 2008. You seem incapable of understanding that you are not in full possession of all evidence gathered by 3 police forces and private investigators since the PJ gave up since 2008. You seem to believe that every last scrap of evidence gathered in the last 10 years has been divulged and that the police have witheld nothing at all of consequence from the public that may actually point to abduction as the reason for Madeleine’s disappearance. Why is that, out of interest?
-
Well, if the police can believe in a stranger abduction without any verifiable evidence what's to stop others forming opinions?
Why is it OK to mock my opinion but not the troll’s, out of interest?
-
The problem with your logic is that you assume that the police only have access to the same limited information that you are privy to. You seem to believe that there has been no new evidence gathered since 2008. You seem incapable of understanding that you are not in full possession of all evidence gathered by 3 police forces and private investigators since the PJ gave up since 2008. You seem to believe that every last scrap of evidence gathered in the last 10 years has been divulged and that the police have witheld nothing at all of consequence from the public that may actually point to abduction as the reason for Madeleine’s disappearance. Why is that, out of interest?
You can only assume that the three expert investigative forces really have, since 2008, found new evidence that Madeleine was taken in a criminal act by a stranger. Because they haven't presented any (apart from the e-fits of, allegedly, Madeleine's father).
What evidence do you imagine the three expert investigative forces might have uncovered?
Why didn't this evidence lead them straight to the murderer? Why was it that it took them until Busching got nicked for people trafficking before they found the concrete evidence to add to this evidence Madeleine was taken in a criminal act by a stranger, that you believe exists?
-
It does seem rather strange to me that the evidence Madeleine was taken in a criminal act by a stranger, doesn't implicate any stranger in particular. It has a certain ambiguity about it, the evidence Madeleine was taken in a criminal act by a stranger. I wonder what it could possibly be?
Perhaps someone who believes in it's existence can explain?
-
Why is it OK to mock my opinion but not the troll’s, out of interest?
I believe G-Unit silently accepts that it's very difficult to argue with the troll.
-
It does seem rather strange to me that the evidence Madeleine was taken in a criminal act by a stranger, doesn't implicate any stranger in particular. It has a certain ambiguity about it, the evidence Madeleine was taken in a criminal act by a stranger. I wonder what it could possibly be?
Perhaps someone who believes in it's existence can explain?
SY ruled out both woke & wandered and all the people in Luz close to Madeleine having removed her from 5A.
-
SY ruled out both woke & wandered and all the people in Luz close to Madeleine having removed her from 5A.
I wonder how they managed that, considering her parents were the last to claim to have seen her?
I suppose they must have just accepted the McCanns word as entirely truthful, since there's no way to actually corroborate their last sighting of Madeleine at all.
-
I wonder how they managed that, considering her parents were the last to claim to have seen her?
I suppose they must have just accepted the McCanns word as entirely truthful, since there's no way to actually corroborate their last sighting of Madeleine at all.
There's no way to corroborate the claims Amaral made in his book either but that didn't stop more than one judge ruling in his favour.
-
There's no way to corroborate the claims Amaral made in his book either but that didn't stop more than one judge ruling in his favour.
Sigh.
The judges weren't ruling on the accuracy or otherwise of Amaral's claims. Instead, what damage, if any, the thesis in his book had caused them. As it happens, the McCanns failed to demonstrate the book harmed them in any measurable way.
-
Sigh.
The judges weren't ruling on the accuracy or otherwise of Amaral's claims. Instead, what damage, if any, the thesis in his book had caused them. As it happens, the McCanns failed to demonstrate the book harmed them in any measurable way.
The judges referred to "proven facts" from the files as the basis for Amaral's value judgement. The way in which Amaral presented his opinion bore little evidential resemblance to the proven facts and therefore DID add insult to injury imo.
Many people seem quite content to accept such uncorroborated speculation yet refuse to believe the words of the (living) people most affected by the events of 3/5/07.
I guess the damage GA's book & documentary caused to the search for Madeleine over the years is of secondary importance to sceptics. Even now they'd rather think the worst of the McCanns than the best of BKA & SY.
-
The judges referred to "proven facts" from the files as the basis for Amaral's value judgement. The way in which Amaral presented his opinion bore little evidential resemblance to the proven facts and therefore DID add insult to injury imo.
Many people seem quite content to accept such uncorroborated speculation yet refuse to believe the words of the (living) people most affected by the events of 3/5/07.
I guess the damage GA's book & documentary caused to the search for Madeleine over the years is of secondary importance to sceptics. Even now they'd rather think the worst of the McCanns than the best of BKA & SY.
I'm sorry, what damage to the search did the book & documentary cause exactly?
As I understand things, Brueckner had already murdered Maddie & destroyed the evidence by the 4th of May, so there wasn't any chance of her being found anyway. Uncorroborated book or no.
-
SY ruled out both woke & wandered and all the people in Luz close to Madeleine having removed her from 5A.
With the evidence available that wasn't possible imo.
-
The judges referred to "proven facts" from the files as the basis for Amaral's value judgement. The way in which Amaral presented his opinion bore little evidential resemblance to the proven facts and therefore DID add insult to injury imo.
Many people seem quite content to accept such uncorroborated speculation yet refuse to believe the words of the (living) people most affected by the events of 3/5/07.
I guess the damage GA's book & documentary caused to the search for Madeleine over the years is of secondary importance to sceptics. Even now they'd rather think the worst of the McCanns than the best of BKA & SY.
You are taking the same path as Mr Gray. What was proved was that most of the facts used by Amaral in his book were taken from the case files. The idea that the book harmed the search for Madeleine was dismissed seven years ago by the very first Portuguese judge as not proved. It's an opinion, not a fact.
-
You are taking the same path as Mr Gray. What was proved was that most of the facts used by Amaral in his book were taken from the case files. The idea that the book harmed the search for Madeleine was dismissed seven years ago by the very first Portuguese judge as not proved. It's an opinion, not a fact.
Using your preferred celestial teapot argument prove that the book did not harm the search for Madeleine.
-
With the evidence available that wasn't possible imo.
Tell that to Andy Redwood, Mark Rowley, et al, I’m sure they would benefit from your wisdom and expertise (despite the fact that you haven’t got access to all the information they have in this case and have no professional experience).
-
Using your preferred celestial teapot argument prove that the book did not harm the search for Madeleine.
In a civil trial the accusor must prove their allegations. Witness Maria Isabel Stilwell gave evidence, but all she could offer is 'a feeling'. The allegation was not provable.
"ID - Did the attention of the public and the media decrease after the publication of the book and the broadcast of the documentary?
IS says she "has a feeling" it did.
ID - Are there numbers, notes supporting this?
IS says that as a newspaper editor she knows when an issue is important."
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=2411.0
-
Tell that to Andy Redwood, Mark Rowley, et al, I’m sure they would benefit from your wisdom and expertise (despite the fact that you haven’t got access to all the information they have in this case and have no professional experience).
So how can someone with no more access to information than me state as fact that "SY ruled out both woke & wandered and all the people in Luz close to Madeleine having removed her from 5A."? SY haven't ever claimed those specific achievements as far as I know.
-
So how can someone with no more access to information than me state as fact that "SY ruled out both woke & wandered and all the people in Luz close to Madeleine having removed her from 5A."? SY haven't ever claimed those specific achievements as far as I know.
Use logic, read what Redwood and Rowley have said and you will arrive at your answer.
-
In a civil trial the accusor must prove their allegations. Witness Maria Isabel Stilwell gave evidence, but all she could offer is 'a feeling'. The allegation was not provable.
"ID - Did the attention of the public and the media decrease after the publication of the book and the broadcast of the documentary?
IS says she "has a feeling" it did.
ID - Are there numbers, notes supporting this?
IS says that as a newspaper editor she knows when an issue is important."
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=2411.0
you can’t prove the book didn’t harm the search can you? Thought not. @)(++(*
-
you can’t prove the book didn’t harm the search can you? Thought not. @)(++(*
I don't need to.
-
I don't need to.
that’s beside the point, the fact is you couldn’t anyway even if you did need to. Perhaps you will now learn not to ask me such similarly ridiculous questions in future.
-
Bearing in mind that Madeleine could have been in France, I remember that a lot of people around here were convinced that The McCanns had killed Madeleine, so they certainly weren't looking out for her, although I remained mindful for a very long time. And Amaral was responsible for their attitude because people in general thought that he knew what he was talking about.
I was working for an English couple at the time who owned a house here and a house in Praia da Luz and they believed Amaral, although they were more concerned with how it all affected their bookings. But they did eventually become rather more sceptical about The PJ.
-
I don't need to.
Of course you don't.
-
that’s beside the point, the fact is you couldn’t anyway even if you did need to. Perhaps you will now learn not to ask me such similarly ridiculous questions in future.
The difference between me and the McCanns is that they did need to prove their allegation in court.
-
Of course you don't.
Nor does anyone else
-
The difference between me and the McCanns is that they did need to prove their allegation in court.
I think it's a reasonable conclusion for them to have held, however impossible to prove and they should have been advised of that from the off imo. I guess they allowed their hearts to rule their heads which is never a good thing when it comes to pursuing any legal action.
-
I think it's a reasonable conclusion for them to have held, however impossible to prove and they should have been advised of that from the off imo. I guess they allowed their hearts to rule their heads which is never a good thing when it comes to pursuing any legal action.
It kept Madeleine in The News. Fifteen years later and here we still are.
-
It kept Madeleine in The News. Fifteen years later and here we still are.
Good point. They were simply pursuing any and every action they could to keep the fight to discover what happened to their daughter alive. Some actions were more successful than others. And - at the end of the day "Madeleine" by Kate McCann outsold Amaral's tome by a massive factor, so in the battle of the books they won that one hands down. And the investigation finally got going again and on the right course, having initially been led up a blind alley.
-
Bearing in mind that Madeleine could have been in France, I remember that a lot of people around here were convinced that The McCanns had killed Madeleine, so they certainly weren't looking out for her, although I remained mindful for a very long time. And Amaral was responsible for their attitude because people in general thought that he knew what he was talking about.
I was working for an English couple at the time who owned a house here and a house in Praia da Luz and they believed Amaral, although they were more concerned with how it all affected their bookings. But they did eventually become rather more sceptical about The PJ.
I think the problem is that everyone believed Amaral at the time and until very recently.
The McCanns did not take immediate action when his book was first published - they were far too busy campaigning and looking for their missing daughter.
But as the only people who were actively looking for Madeleine in the firm belief she might still be a living breathing child as there is absolutely no evidence to the contrary, they were best placed to make the assessment about what was and what was not prejudicing public opinion.
The propaganda hive built around Amaral and his cronies was deemed by them to be the worst factor damaging their at the time lone search for Madeleine.
As the people most in the know about the effect the lies were having, they took legal action to stop it.
I think they were perfectly within their rights to do so and I think that at the time it was absolutely the correct decision for them to make bearing in mind that the alternative would have been to roll over and allow Amaral to say and print whatever nonsense came into his head without challenge.
That would have blown any case they had for continuing the search for Madeleine right out of the water.
The McCanns were doing their utmost to find Madeleine: Amaral was doing his utmost to convince the world Madeleine was dead.
-
The difference between me and the McCanns is that they did need to prove their allegation in court.
There is an insurmountable chasm between you and the McCanns.
They were looking for their missing child.
You are a self confessed member of an organisation diametrically opposed to everything the McCanns stand for.
-
I think it's a reasonable conclusion for them to have held, however impossible to prove and they should have been advised of that from the off imo. I guess they allowed their hearts to rule their heads which is never a good thing when it comes to pursuing any legal action.
I think they had no choice VS. I think it was a pragmatic decision taken to halt the frenzy of misinformation on the airwaves. Which I for one really do think it was aimed at ensuring Madeleine joined Joana in the box marked "sorted".
I think it is instructive that judges throughout the long procedures continually found in their favour. Always to be overturned at the appeal stage.
-
I think it's a reasonable conclusion for them to have held, however impossible to prove and they should have been advised of that from the off imo. I guess they allowed their hearts to rule their heads which is never a good thing when it comes to pursuing any legal action.
They shared it with their lawyer who included it in her case. She can hardly be blamed if Kate insists on clinging to her opinions.
-
I think they had no choice VS. I think it was a pragmatic decision taken to halt the frenzy of misinformation on the airwaves. Which I for one really do think it was aimed at ensuring Madeleine joined Joana in the box marked "sorted".
I think it is instructive that judges throughout the long procedures continually found in their favour. Always to be overturned at the appeal stage.
How many judges found in their favour?
-
They shared it with their lawyer who included it in her case. She can hardly be blamed if Kate insists on clinging to her opinions.
1) I didn't blame her lawyer 2) you insist on clinging to your opinions - do you think having strong opinions (particularly about things that affect you personally) is wrong?
-
How many judges found in their favour?
Maybe the question should be "How many appeals did Amaral win against the McCanns?" - then subtract one from t'other.
-
There is an insurmountable chasm between you and the McCanns.
They were looking for their missing child.
You are a self confessed member of an organisation diametrically opposed to everything the McCanns stand for.
Well not really. though they were expecting everyone to do so for them.
-
There is an insurmountable chasm between you and the McCanns.
They were looking for their missing child.
You are a self confessed member of an organisation diametrically opposed to everything the McCanns stand for.
This is merely a belief of yours. An opinion which you assert as fact.
In reality, there is no way to be sure the McCanns really are looking for their allegedly abducted daughter.
-
This is merely a belief of yours. An opinion which you assert as fact.
In reality, there is no way to be sure the McCanns really are looking for their allegedly abducted daughter.
And, of course, something else they failed at as she has never turned up.
-
And, of course, something else they failed at as she has never turned up.
There must be a positive for the McCanns that we can spin out of this somehow, as seems to be the current theme in light of their defeat to Amaral & Portugal.
How about, they may not have found Madeleine, but, they raised awareness about other missing children in the process (not that any have ever been found thanks to them but) yes. That'll do.
-
It all seems to be going okay as far as I can see. Madeleine is still in The News and everybody is helping whether they want to or not. While those who don't want to are casting suspicion on themselves or those they think they are helping.
-
Well not really. though they were expecting everyone to do so for them.
The alleged "expectation" that the police would do their job of investigating crime, did not become a reality until SY opened and the PJ reopened Madeleine's case in 2013.
With the BKA finding evidence to open their case at a later date.
So between 2007 and 2013 only the McCanns and their private detectives were looking for Madeleine.
-
It all seems to be going okay as far as I can see. Madeleine is still in The News and everybody is helping whether they want to or not. While those who don't want to are casting suspicion on themselves or those they think they are helping.
How on earth is it going ok? The three expert investigative forces have concrete evidence Madeleine was murdered by a paedophile & the McCanns have just wasted the past 10 years pursuing an unsuccessful civil case. If that's classed as going ok then I dread to think what things going badly for them would be like.
-
And, of course, something else they failed at as she has never turned up.
Lovely bit of victim blaming there. So, basically every parent of a missing child is a failure. Nice.
-
It all seems to be going okay as far as I can see. Madeleine is still in The News and everybody is helping whether they want to or not. While those who don't want to are casting suspicion on themselves or those they think they are helping.
I believe Madeleine to be beyond help.
-
How on earth is it going ok? The three expert investigative forces have concrete evidence Madeleine was murdered by a paedophile & the McCanns have just wasted the past 10 years pursuing an unsuccessful civil case. If that's classed as going ok then I dread to think what things going badly for them would be like.
The ECHR has spoken. But the fat lady is just toning up the throat muscles and getting ready to sing.
By the way - a 'concrete' reminder
I don't know - and to be honest I really do not care - but there seems to be more than a co-incidence between our Spammer's fixation with "CONCRETE EVIDENCE" and the rest of the sceptic lexicon.
Maddie case: "They seem not yet to be very sure about concrete evidence"
SIC News
04.06.2020
Carlos Carmo, former coordinator of the Judicial Police, analyzes the new developments in the investigation.
The former inspector of the JUDICIARY considers that the British police work with a budget that allows to pay informants and that, in this way, "from time to time appear some suspects", but that there seems to be no certainty as to concrete evidence regarding the German man considered a formal suspect.
https://sicnoticias.pt/especiais/caso-maddie---10-anos/2020-06-03-Caso-Maddie-Parecem-nao-estar-ainda-bem-seguros-relativamente-a-provas-concretas
Video Transcript:
CC – We just recently had the anniversary marking the disappearance of Maddie McCann. Over the years, occasionally some suspects emerge, it shouldn’t be forgotten that the English police works with quite a high financial budget, what I mean by this is that it is possible to use informants, to pay to informants, to see if the police can gather criminal intelligence. Therefore, I would not be surprised that the case, this case of the German man, that is detained, in jail, is also a case stemming from intelligence collected by the BKA [German Police acronym for Bundeskriminalamt]. However, we do not know what the reliability of that information is; note that the communiqué of the German police is broad, but simultaneously also looks to grasp at something more, it speaks of vehicles, two vehicles, speaks of the stay of this individual in the area of Portimão. So, they do not seem to be very sure about concrete evidence.
_____________________________________________________________________
RP – Carlos do Carmo, thank you so much for coming to the night edition with your views about this situation. Have a very good night.
// Translation by J.M. for the Textusa sisters //
*****
Comment from the blog:
A huge thank you to Joana!
We would like to highlight the date of this interview: June 4. This was on the next day after this story broke out on the evening of June 3. https://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=12474.msg697647#msg697647
-
1) I didn't blame her lawyer 2) you insist on clinging to your opinions - do you think having strong opinions (particularly about things that affect you personally) is wrong?
People can form any opinions they wish. I wouldn't advise them to instigate court cases against others armed only with opinions, however.
-
Lovely bit of victim blaming there. So, basically every parent of a missing child is a failure. Nice.
Isn't it an important part of parenthood that when you have a child it's your responsibility to take care of it until it turns at least 16? I mean, kids don't tend to go missing whilst parents are actually supervising them, do they. It's when they are left alone that they seem most vulnerable to disappearances. So yes, every parent of a missing child must have failed at that supervisory aspect of parenting. That seems indisputable to me.
-
The fat lady is getting ready to sing. Charges for Brueckner by the end of the year. Mark my words & go bet your house on it.
-
Maybe the question should be "How many appeals did Amaral win against the McCanns?" - then subtract one from t'other.
He and his associates appealed against the first judgement and won. So three appeal court judges?
-
I believe Madeleine to be beyond help.
Yeah, & I don't think there's much hope for me either frankly, I'm sure members will agree.
-
He and his associates appealed against the first judgement and won. So three appeal court judges?
He won the appeals that counted. whereas McCann didn't.
-
People can form any opinions they wish. I wouldn't advise them to instigate court cases against others armed only with opinions, however.
I think you'll find I pretty much wrote exactly that, but don't let me stop you picking a fight over nothing. Again.
-
He and his associates appealed against the first judgement and won. So three appeal court judges?
Yes ... I have some thoughts on that. But not on this thread, maybe a stand alone post on a new thread if I have time.
-
I'm sorry, what damage to the search did the book & documentary cause exactly?
As I understand things, Brueckner had already murdered Maddie & destroyed the evidence by the 4th of May, so there wasn't any chance of her being found anyway. Uncorroborated book or no.
Jncorrect. There is evidence that Madeleine was living and physically well in 2012. A video.
According to psychics, she still lives.
Please do not make things up ... yet again.
-
How on earth is it going ok? The three expert investigative forces have concrete evidence Madeleine was murdered by a paedophile & the McCanns have just wasted the past 10 years pursuing an unsuccessful civil case. If that's classed as going ok then I dread to think what things going badly for them would be like.
Not true. SY are looking for a MISSING MADELEINE as YOU WELL KNOW
Why do you repeatedly spread disinformation? There has to be a reason. Please give this reason.
-
He and his associates appealed against the first judgement and won. So three appeal court judges?
Can you please give me all the judges names? Thankyou.
-
Can you please give me all the judges names? Thankyou.
Why?
-
Why?
Can you answer the Question? Although I doubt that it matters if you can't. But why answer with another question?
-
Jncorrect. There is evidence that Madeleine was living and physically well in 2012. A video.
According to psychics, she still lives.
Please do not make things up ... yet again.
Spam isn't making that up, Wolters said that Madeleine is dead, Wolters said that the suspect killed the girl, Wolters said that they have concrete evidence to that fact, I agree it flies in the face of what SY say, there is a disconnect , but why ?
-
Can you answer the Question? Although I doubt that it matters if you can't. But why answer with another question?
Someone is asking me to spend time discovering information for them. Unless I know the reason I won't be doing that.
-
Spam isn't making that up, Wolters said that Madeleine is dead, Wolters said that the suspect killed the girl, Wolters said that they have concrete evidence t (&^& (&^&o that fact, I agree it flies in the face of what SY say, there is a disconnect , but why ?
SY haven't seen the concrete evidence, it seems. If Wolters wants a united front he should share what he has. Perhaps SY have something which will help, who knows? Mind you, SY is very busy at the moment with their many other problems.
-
Someone is asking me to spend time discovering information for them. Unless I know the reason I won't be doing that.
Unless, of course the information is of some use to aid your personal opinions. Obviously, it wasn't.
-
Unless, of course the information is of some use to aid your personal opinions. Obviously, it wasn't.
I have no idea why the information might be useful. That's why I asked the question. I would have thought that was obvious.
-
I have no idea why the information might be useful. That's why I asked the question. I would have thought that was obvious.
You asked the question, so why didn't you look for the answer?
-
SY haven't seen the concrete evidence, it seems. If Wolters wants a united front he should share what he has. Perhaps SY have something which will help, who knows? Mind you, SY is very busy at the moment with their many other problems.
I wondered how long it was going to be before the “many other problems “ were brought up. Because of course they have a direct bearing on Operation Grange, in the same way that a paedo teacher charged with offences in my town means that no child is getting a decent education locally.
-
You asked the question, so why didn't you look for the answer?
I'm not interested in this circular conversation and my participation ends here.
-
I'm not interested in this circular conversation and my participation ends here.
So why start the conversation in the first place?
-
I wondered how long it was going to be before the “many other problems “ were brought up. Because of course they have a direct bearing on Operation Grange, in the same way that a paedo teacher charged with offences in my town means that no child is getting a decent education locally.
Do you think OG are searching for a missing Madeleine, or are they in agreement with Wolters that she's dead and Brueckner did it?
-
Do you think OG are searching for a missing Madeleine, or are they in agreement with Wolters that she's dead and Brueckner did it?
What makes you think I, or anyone here knows the answer to that question? One thing I do know however is that they believe Madeleine was taken in a criminal act by a stranger and that her parents are not involved in any way, shape or form, a fact which you continue to struggle with to this day.
-
What makes you think I, or anyone here knows the answer to that question? One thing I do know however is that they believe Madeleine was taken in a criminal act by a stranger and that her parents are not involved in any way, shape or form, a fact which you continue to struggle with to this day.
So when people quote three police forces are in agreement they just mean the police agree on the status of the McCanns as non-suspects?
-
So when people quote three police forces are in agreement they just mean the police agree on the status of the McCanns as non-suspects?
and that therefore if the McCanns didn't do it, someone else (ie a stranger) did. It's not really hard when you apply logic. Give it a go sometime!
-
and that therefore if the McCanns didn't do it, someone else (ie a stranger) did. It's not really hard when you apply logic. Give it a go sometime!
Sceptics aren't known for Logic. Logic has been at the root of this from day one.
-
and that therefore if the McCanns didn't do it, someone else (ie a stranger) did. It's not really hard when you apply logic. Give it a go sometime!
Ok, I will. How are the three expert investigative forces getting on, armed as they are with the weight of abduction evidence & logic on their side, how are they getting on with finding the abductor? Having much luck with that are they? No? Ah, well maybe there just wasn't one then aye.
-
So when people quote three police forces are in agreement they just mean the police agree on the status of the McCanns as non-suspects?
Yes, this is because of the evidence Madeleine was taken in a criminal act by a stranger.
New Topic
The evidence Madeleine was taken in a criminal act by a stranger. What could it possibly be?
I expect the new thread to attract as much supporter attention as the possible evidence against Christian Brueckner thread. Which bombed completely when the weight of logic was applied to it.
-
Ok, I will. How are the three expert investigative forces getting on, armed as they are with the weight of abduction evidence & logic on their side, how are they getting on with finding the abductor? Having much luck with that are they? No? Ah, well maybe there just wasn't one then aye.
There is no evidence against the McCann's. So work it out.
-
There is no evidence against the McCann's. So work it out.
Maybe they destroyed it. Have you considered that at all?
-
It still tickles me to think that some people believe the longer the police spend investigating a specific crime the less likely it is to have ever happened in the first place. I mean, where is the logic in that I ask you?
-
It still tickles me to think that some people believe the longer the police spend investigating a specific crime the less likely it is to have ever happened in the first place. I mean, where is the logic in that I ask you?
When you've finished feeling tickled perhaps you could suggest what evidence could there possibly be, that Madeleine was taken in a criminal act by a stranger?
Any suggestions?
Whatever it is, it didn't lead the worlds finest to the murderer for some reason.
-
There is no evidence against the McCann's. So work it out.
So no documentary, physical, empirical, scientific, material, circumstantial, anectodal, objective, strong, weak, conclusive or hard evidence whatsoever? I would have to disagree I'm afraid. There was insufficient evidence to lay charges, not no evidence.
-
So no documentary, physical, empirical, scientific, material, circumstantial, anectodal, objective, strong, weak, conclusive or hard evidence whatsoever? I would have to disagree I'm afraid. There was insufficient evidence to lay charges, not no evidence.
Is the evidence you are thinking of the dogs and DNA? If so they have been ignored by two Police forces.
-
So no documentary, physical, empirical, scientific, material, circumstantial, anectodal, objective, strong, weak, conclusive or hard evidence whatsoever? I would have to disagree I'm afraid. There was insufficient evidence to lay charges, not no evidence.
The police ruled out Smithman being Gerry, what else have you got? Dog barks that don’t constitute evidence according to their handler, and….what else?
-
Is the evidence you are thinking of the dogs and DNA? If so they have been ignored by two Police forces.
But not the sighting of Madeleine's father. SY were more willing to publicise the E-Fits of the Smiths sighting than the McCanns themselves were. Bizarrely enough. What a curious anomaly.
Oh well, it's probably not important.
-
The police ruled out Smithman being Gerry, what else have you got? Dog barks that don’t constitute evidence according to their handler, and….what else?
No abductor.
-
No abductor, & no evidence there ever was one, apart from the McCanns unverifiable claim that Madeleine was abducted.
-
But not the sighting of Madeleine's father. SY were more willing to publicise the E-Fits of the Smiths sighting than the McCanns themselves were. Bizarrely enough. What a curious anomaly.
Oh well, it's probably not important.
Proof of that please.
-
Proof of that please.
Proof of what? That the McCanns never publicised the e-fits? Well, they didn't.
-
Spam isn't making that up, Wolters said that Madeleine is dead, Wolters said that the suspect killed the girl, Wolters said that they have concrete evidence to that fact, I agree it flies in the face of what SY say, there is a disconnect , but why ?
I think it must be something to do with logic, Barrier. Us sceptics just wouldn't understand.
-
Is the evidence you are thinking of the dogs and DNA? If so they have been ignored by two Police forces.
I wasn't thinking of any evidence in particular, I was just surprised that you said there was no evidence. Did you perhaps mean there wasn't any proof?
-
I wasn't thinking of any evidence in particular, I was just surprised that you said there was no evidence. Did you perhaps mean there wasn't any proof?
I'm reminded of someone. Not seen much of him lately. Perhaps he's been abducted.
-
I wasn't thinking of any evidence in particular, I was just surprised that you said there was no evidence. Did you perhaps mean there wasn't any proof?
Perhaps we could have a new thread entiled “Evidence That The Parents Murdered Madeleine “. Would that be acceptable?
-
Perhaps we could have a new thread entiled “Evidence That The Parents Murdered Madeleine “. Would that be acceptable?
To whom? I wouldn't have a problem with it. Might not be a very long thread granted, but if the mere idea of it is enough to cause supporters ire then it seems it would be totally worth it to me.
-
When you've finished feeling tickled perhaps you could suggest what evidence could there possibly be, that Madeleine was taken in a criminal act by a stranger?
Any suggestions?
Whatever it is, it didn't lead the worlds finest to the murderer for some reason.
There are a number of things, happenings, that have been gone over before ad nauseam
Some are quite small but collectively they make quite a statement.
Suggest that you read back ... but know that you won't.
-
There are a number of things, happenings, that have been gone over before ad nauseam
Some are quite small but collectively they make quite a statement.
Suggest that you read back ... but know that you won't.
Great non answer there. Thanks for your input.
-
But not the sighting of Madeleine's father. SY were more willing to publicise the E-Fits of the Smiths sighting than the McCanns themselves were. Bizarrely enough. What a curious anomaly.
Oh well, it's probably not important.
What sighting of Madeleines father?
If you are libelling Gerry as a candidate to match the efits provided by the Smiths, then get real, WS.
Anyone with an ounce of understanding of portraiture, will tell you that the pertinent efit is much more like a criminal cop, now in jail, than it is like Gerry.
Same as with Madeleine being carried on the wo/mans back in Zinat, Rif Mountains, Morocco.
The original Clara Torres photo is nothing like Bushra except she has fair hair . The original Clara Torres photographed little girl is Madeleine.
The amazing thing is that a little girl who is the image of Joana Cipriano in several ways, and of the correct age range, is in the same photograph.
Two missing girls on the same photo !!!!
And, several years ago, I posted an article about European Business men keeping harems of children in Morocco. Several of you will have seen this article, but I am expecting that it has been wiped.
Will be interesting to check, it has alraedy been wiped off Google browser.
*%6^ Hmm?
-
Sadie quote
There are a number of things, happenings, that have been gone over before ad nauseam
Some are quite small but collectively they make quite a statement.
Suggest that you read back ... but know that you won't.
Ok, you have challenged this WS
Just a few pointers, clues for the discerning. who are willing to consider.[/u]
1. Witness Jane Tanner saw a man hurrying off with a ?sleeping girl who matched Madeleines description.
2. Witness Kate saw the open window.
Witness Matt saw a strange greenish light coming from the (closed curtained) shutter area. Was the shutter raised already and the sickly yellowish street light mixed its colour with the blue curtains, making green? Had Madeleine already gone ?
I think that directed from the balcony opposite, the watcher thinking that GErry was gone completely, ordered the go ahead immediately. Then too late, Witness Jane appeared. The director of operations was already in the getaway car by then, which he could access by the rear garden of the balcony and flat block
3. Several Witnesses saw a certain man watching 5A. One Witness, Tasmin Silence, saw him on two seperate days. He was WATCHING 5A. In fact, the once he was really close up, leaning against the garden wall and peering in.
4) There were fag ends on the balcony of the block immediately opposite 5A.
From this balcony a watcher/abduction director could see the area immediately before both front and rear doors and to the routes up to and away from 5A. He could see all around, both roads. In fact, apert from southwards on the eastern pavement and little car park opposite Tapas reception, he could see everywhere including the Tapas restaurant. I believe he could see them eating.
And he could see straight into 5A and see anyone walking towards, or away, from Madeleines bedroom, and the front door and the patio doors, because the siting room light was left on.
He himself could vanish into the shadow of Block 6, which was cast by the street lamp obliquely outside. Or just duck down behind the balcony. What an amazing viewing point
5) A limousine,which IIRC was black, was seen driving up by Baptista Supermarket at the pertinent time that Kate and Gerry suddenly appeared out of 5A en route for the restaurant. This limousine suddenly made a three point turn and drove off away from the viewing area. ?Frightened of being seen by Kate and Gerry? For a couple to have noticed this, the three point turn must have been very hurried and rough IMO. Maybe panicky?
6) Parents who had criminally vanished their own child would NOT lobby, as the Mccanns did, for Scotland Yard to be brought in.
THINK about it WS. Had you done it, would YOU bring in Scotland Yard ?
-
Fag ends, allegedly open windows, sightings of men & there's no way the McCanns could have dunnit?
If that's the abduction evidence then on second thoughts, yes, I suppose it is little wonder really why the three investigative forces can't solve the case.
-
Sadie quote
Ok, you have challenged this WS
Just a few pointers, clues for the discerning. who are willing to consider.[/u]
1. Witness Jane Tanner saw a man hurrying off with a ?sleeping girl who matched Madeleines description.
2. Witness Kate saw the open window.
Witness Matt saw a strange greenish light coming from the (closed curtained) shutter area. Was the shutter raised already and the sickly yellowish street light mixed its colour with the blue curtains, making green? Had Madeleine already gone ?
I think that directed from the balcony opposite, the watcher thinking that GErry was gone completely, ordered the go ahead immediately. Then too late, Witness Jane appeared. The director of operations was already in the getaway car by then, which he could access by the rear garden of the balcony and flat block
3. Several Witnesses saw a certain man watching 5A. One Witness, Tasmin Silence, saw him on two seperate days. He was WATCHING 5A. In fact, the once he was really close up, leaning against the garden wall and peering in.
4) There were fag ends on the balcony of the block immediately opposite 5A.
From this balcony a watcher/abduction director could see the area immediately before both front and rear doors and to the routes up to and away from 5A. He could see all around, both roads. In fact, apert from southwards on the eastern pavement and little car park opposite Tapas reception, he could see everywhere including the Tapas restaurant. I believe he could see them eating.
And he could see straight into 5A and see anyone walking towards, or away, from Madeleines bedroom, and the front door and the patio doors, because the siting room light was left on.
He himself could vanish into the shadow of Block 6, which was cast by the street lamp obliquely outside. Or just duck down behind the balcony. What an amazing viewing point
5) A limousine,which IIRC was black, was seen driving up by Baptista Supermarket at the pertinent time that Kate and Gerry suddenly appeared out of 5A en route for the restaurant. This limousine suddenly made a three point turn and drove off away from the viewing area. ?Frightened of being seen by Kate and Gerry? For a couple to have noticed this, the three point turn must have been very hurried and rough IMO. Maybe panicky?
6) Parents who had criminally vanished their own child would NOT lobby, as the Mccanns did, for Scotland Yard to be brought in.
THINK about it WS. Had you done it, would YOU bring in Scotland Yard ?
Point 1 Sadie, SY are almost certain that the person seen by Tanner carrying a child was not the abductor, he went on to say the smith sighting where a man carrying a child matching a description close to that of Madeleine was the focus, who described the child Tanner saw fitted a description of Madeleine ?
-
I wasn't thinking of any evidence in particular, I was just surprised that you said there was no evidence. Did you perhaps mean there wasn't any proof?
What evidence was there that the McCann's staged an abduction and hid Madeleine's ?
-
Proof of what? That the McCanns never publicised the e-fits? Well, they didn't.
Proof that they were able to publicise the e-fits or was that it was down to Amaral to publicise them.
Do you remember the McCann's were paid a considerable sum because someone said they had withheld the e-fits, you are repeating libel.
-
Proof that they were able to publicise the e-fits or was that it was down to Amaral to publicise them.
Do you remember the McCann's were paid a considerable sum because someone said they had withheld the e-fits, you are repeating libel.
No, I'm not. The McCanns never publicised the e-fits. That is a fact. They weren't in Kate's account of the truth or on their website. The e-fits were made long after Amaral, & The Times were threatened with legal action because their article could have been construed as the McCanns withholding the e-fits from the police. I'm alleging no such thing. I'm simply stating the fact that the McCanns never publicised the e-fits, because they didn't, you see.
-
What evidence was there that the McCann's staged an abduction and hid Madeleine's ?
The total absence of evidence Madeleine was ever taken in a criminal act by a stranger.
-
What evidence was there that the McCann's staged an abduction and hid Madeleine's ?
That's a conclusion, a theory reached by some policemen based on the evidence they had collected. What the PJ really had was strong suspicions that they were not being told the truth because individual statements didn't add up and statements were changed. When the CSI dogs alerted only to areas, cars and clothing used only by the McCanns their suspicions were intensified and they made the couple arguidos because they needed to ask them questions the answers to which could lead to charges.
-
Proof that they were able to publicise the e-fits or was that it was down to Amaral to publicise them.
Do you remember the McCann's were paid a considerable sum because someone said they had withheld the e-fits, you are repeating libel.
The McCanns could have publicised the e-fits had they wished, just as they publicised the 'Victoria Beckham' e-fit.
I don't think Amaral ever saw them, did he?
-
No, I'm not. The McCanns never publicised the e-fits. That is a fact. They weren't in Kate's account of the truth or on their website. The e-fits were made long after Amaral, & The Times were threatened with legal action because their article could have been construed as the McCanns withholding the e-fits from the police. I'm alleging no such thing. I'm simply stating the fact that the McCanns never publicised the e-fits, because they didn't, you see.
In articles dated October 27 ("Madeleine clues hidden for 5 years" and "Investigators had E-Fits five years ago", News) we referred to efits which were included in a report prepared by private investigators for the McCanns and the Fund in 2008. We accept that the articles may have been understood to suggest that the McCanns had withheld information from the authorities. This was not the case. We now understand and accept that the efits had been provided to the Portuguese and Leicestershire police by October 2009. We also understand that a copy of the final report including the efits was passed to the Metropolitan police in August 2011, shortly after it commenced its review. We apologise for the distress caused."
-
That's a conclusion, a theory reached by some policemen based on the evidence they had collected. What the PJ really had was strong suspicions that they were not being told the truth because individual statements didn't add up and statements were changed. When the CSI dogs alerted only to areas, cars and clothing used only by the McCanns their suspicions were intensified and they made the couple arguidos because they needed to ask them questions the answers to which could lead to charges.
But didn't lead to Charges. Why was that do you think?
-
That's a conclusion, a theory reached by some policemen based on the evidence they had collected. What the PJ really had was strong suspicions that they were not being told the truth because individual statements didn't add up and statements were changed. When the CSI dogs alerted only to areas, cars and clothing used only by the McCanns their suspicions were intensified and they made the couple arguidos because they needed to ask them questions the answers to which could lead to charges.
You call that evidence?
-
The McCanns could have publicised the e-fits had they wished, just as they publicised the 'Victoria Beckham' e-fit.
I don't think Amaral ever saw them, did he?
Did he?
-
Sadie quote
Ok, you have challenged this WS
Just a few pointers, clues for the discerning. who are willing to consider.[/u]
1. Witness Jane Tanner saw a man hurrying off with a ?sleeping girl who matched Madeleines description.
2. Witness Kate saw the open window.
Witness Matt saw a strange greenish light coming from the (closed curtained) shutter area. Was the shutter raised already and the sickly yellowish street light mixed its colour with the blue curtains, making green? Had Madeleine already gone ?
I think that directed from the balcony opposite, the watcher thinking that GErry was gone completely, ordered the go ahead immediately. Then too late, Witness Jane appeared. The director of operations was already in the getaway car by then, which he could access by the rear garden of the balcony and flat block
3. Several Witnesses saw a certain man watching 5A. One Witness, Tasmin Silence, saw him on two seperate days. He was WATCHING 5A. In fact, the once he was really close up, leaning against the garden wall and peering in.
4) There were fag ends on the balcony of the block immediately opposite 5A.
From this balcony a watcher/abduction director could see the area immediately before both front and rear doors and to the routes up to and away from 5A. He could see all around, both roads. In fact, apert from southwards on the eastern pavement and little car park opposite Tapas reception, he could see everywhere including the Tapas restaurant. I believe he could see them eating.
And he could see straight into 5A and see anyone walking towards, or away, from Madeleines bedroom, and the front door and the patio doors, because the siting room light was left on.
He himself could vanish into the shadow of Block 6, which was cast by the street lamp obliquely outside. Or just duck down behind the balcony. What an amazing viewing point
5) A limousine,which IIRC was black, was seen driving up by Baptista Supermarket at the pertinent time that Kate and Gerry suddenly appeared out of 5A en route for the restaurant. This limousine suddenly made a three point turn and drove off away from the viewing area. ?Frightened of being seen by Kate and Gerry? For a couple to have noticed this, the three point turn must have been very hurried and rough IMO. Maybe panicky?
6) Parents who had criminally vanished their own child would NOT lobby, as the Mccanns did, for Scotland Yard to be brought in.
THINK about it WS. Had you done it, would YOU bring in Scotland Yard ?
Furthermore, three countries Police Forces believe that it was a stranger abduction.
They all agree on that. A stranger abduction WS
-
In articles dated October 27 ("Madeleine clues hidden for 5 years" and "Investigators had E-Fits five years ago", News) we referred to efits which were included in a report prepared by private investigators for the McCanns and the Fund in 2008. We accept that the articles may have been understood to suggest that the McCanns had withheld information from the authorities. This was not the case. We now understand and accept that the efits had been provided to the Portuguese and Leicestershire police by October 2009. We also understand that a copy of the final report including the efits was passed to the Metropolitan police in August 2011, shortly after it commenced its review. We apologise for the distress caused."
Yes, they didn't withhold the e-fits from the authorities, but they did withhold them from the public.
-
Yes, they didn't withhold the e-fits from the authorities, but they did withhold them from the public.
Have you maybe thought it wasn't down to them to make the e-fits public?
-
Have you maybe thought it wasn't down to them to make the e-fits public?
No I haven't, I think they didn't want to make them public, for very obvious reasons.
-
Have you maybe thought it wasn't down to them to make the e-fits public?
It wasn't down to them to publicise the 'Victoria Becham lookalike' either, but they did.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2009/aug/06/victoria-beckham-lookalike-madeleine-mccann
-
It wasn't down to them to publicise the 'Victoria Becham lookalike' either, but they did.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2009/aug/06/victoria-beckham-lookalike-madeleine-mccann
So who do you think it was down to to publicise information on Madeleine's case on 6 Aug 2009?
Who else was looking for Madeleine McCann other than her parents and their private detectives?
The McCann investigators received the information around six weeks ago and Edgar recently spent two days in Barcelona.
A major investigation by Portuguese and British police has failed to find Madeleine.
The McCann team said they would be liaising with British, Australian and Spanish police over the new information. The Portuguese police say they have closed the case.
"We take the witness at face value," said Mitchell. "He is a credible witness, he is a professional man."
Asked why the man had taken more than two years to come forward, Edgar said there were personal reasons but refused to divulge them. "I think he recognises perhaps he should have come forward earlier."
The woman had been sober, Edgar added. "It was significant obviously. Otherwise I would not be here today."
Mitchell said there had been many "well-meaning and malicious" tip-offs over the years since Madeleine disappeared and her parents were hoping this one might be significant. "They are searching for Madeleine with every breath they take. They will never give up until they know what happened to her."
https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2009/aug/06/victoria-beckham-lookalike-madeleine-mccann
-
So who do you think it was down to to publicise information on Madeleine's case on 6 Aug 2009?
Who else was looking for Madeleine McCann other than her parents and their private detectives?
The McCann investigators received the information around six weeks ago and Edgar recently spent two days in Barcelona.
A major investigation by Portuguese and British police has failed to find Madeleine.
The McCann team said they would be liaising with British, Australian and Spanish police over the new information. The Portuguese police say they have closed the case.
"We take the witness at face value," said Mitchell. "He is a credible witness, he is a professional man."
Asked why the man had taken more than two years to come forward, Edgar said there were personal reasons but refused to divulge them. "I think he recognises perhaps he should have come forward earlier."
The woman had been sober, Edgar added. "It was significant obviously. Otherwise I would not be here today."
Mitchell said there had been many "well-meaning and malicious" tip-offs over the years since Madeleine disappeared and her parents were hoping this one might be significant. "They are searching for Madeleine with every breath they take. They will never give up until they know what happened to her."
https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2009/aug/06/victoria-beckham-lookalike-madeleine-mccann
So why not publicise the e-fits provided by Exton?
-
So why not publicise the e-fits provided by Exton?
Because they were given by a man who claimed it was Gerry he saw? If you knew it wasn't you he saw how much reliability would you put on the man's recollection? Alternatively, why would you get your private investigators onto it if you knew it WAS you that one of the witnesses saw?
-
Any word of Amaral publishing his most recent book "Maddie: Enough of Lies!" for sale in English bookshops?
Nah, The UK lost its backbone years and years ago it seems.
-
I think the problem is that everyone believed Amaral at the time and until very recently.
The McCanns did not take immediate action when his book was first published - they were far too busy campaigning and looking for their missing daughter.
But as the only people who were actively looking for Madeleine in the firm belief she might still be a living breathing child as there is absolutely no evidence to the contrary, they were best placed to make the assessment about what was and what was not prejudicing public opinion.
The propaganda hive built around Amaral and his cronies was deemed by them to be the worst factor damaging their at the time lone search for Madeleine.
As the people most in the know about the effect the lies were having, they took legal action to stop it.
I think they were perfectly within their rights to do so and I think that at the time it was absolutely the correct decision for them to make bearing in mind that the alternative would have been to roll over and allow Amaral to say and print whatever nonsense came into his head without challenge.
That would have blown any case they had for continuing the search for Madeleine right out of the water.
The McCanns were doing their utmost to find Madeleine: Amaral was doing his utmost to convince the world Madeleine was dead.
I think the problem is that everyone believed Amaral at the time and until very recently.
Can you not realize most people can come to their own conclusion of what happened to Maddie purely on what they have seen/heard themselves
Or do you think we should all be swayed by what we are told happened by a german prosecutor SY ect ect.
GA's book is not only written from police files....but also first-hand information right or wrong he was an experienced detective.
Even at this moment in time, no one knows what happened that night, or who was responsible.
IMO HCW is equal to GA [if not worse]by constantly announcing Maddie is dead and that he has the evidence.
All it boils down to is who you believe is on the right track.
GA only confirmed to me along the lines - and I'm sure thousands of others...what they were thinking anyway
Your posts regarding GA are as if he is to blame for things going wrong.
When the fact is - the mccs did that to themselves.
IMO your posts have a little propaganda hive going on....when in fact as yet no one can say what happened apart from speculating.
-
Because they were given by a man who claimed it was Gerry he saw? If you knew it wasn't you he saw how much reliability would you put on the man's recollection? Alternatively, why would you get your private investigators onto it if you knew it WAS you that one of the witnesses saw?
So I could obtain as much information from, & about, the witness as possible, & then could use that to create an alternative narrative & attack the witnesses credibility if ever needed.
-
Ricardo Afonso, deputy lawyer for the McCanns.
Ricardo Afonso spent almost two hours talking about numbers, comparing the Gonçalo Amaral book with selected bits of the case files and trying to discredit the author, the PJ and the dogs, while insisting that the British police didn't agree with the PJ's conclusions that led to the McCanns being made arguidos.
.........................
He also attacked the Smiths' credibility and questioned why they were seen as credible by the investigation while Jane Tanner was discredited. He said that Tanner's sighting corroborated the Smiths' sighting, but that the coordinator, Gonçalo Amaral, and his team simply wouldn't investigate anything except the death thesis and the McCanns.
https://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=5786.0
-
"He said that Tanner's sighting corroborated the Smiths' sighting"
The abductor had a haircut during the 40 odd minutes between the two sightings.
-
"He said that Tanner's sighting corroborated the Smiths' sighting"
The abductor had a haircut during the 40 odd minutes between the two sightings.
Obviously at a late-night Barbers with creche facilities.
-
Obviously at a late-night Barbers with creche facilities.
Maddie slept right through it all. The abductor gave her Calpol.
-
I think the problem is that everyone believed Amaral at the time and until very recently.
Can you not realize most people can come to their own conclusion of what happened to Maddie purely on what they have seen/heard themselves
Or do you think we should all be swayed by what we are told happened by a german prosecutor SY ect ect.
GA's book is not only written from police files....but also first-hand information right or wrong he was an experienced detective.
Even at this moment in time, no one knows what happened that night, or who was responsible.
IMO HCW is equal to GA [if not worse]by constantly announcing Maddie is dead and that he has the evidence.
All it boils down to is who you believe is on the right track.
GA only confirmed to me along the lines - and I'm sure thousands of others...what they were thinking anyway
Your posts regarding GA are as if he is to blame for things going wrong.
When the fact is - the mccs did that to themselves.
IMO your posts have a little propaganda hive going on....when in fact as yet no one can say what happened apart from speculating.
Can you show me where in the Police files it was concluded that the DNA and dog alerts proved that Madeleine had died.
-
No I haven't, I think they didn't want to make them public, for very obvious reasons.
The Smiths were Amaral's witness, would they be able to publish their e-fits?
A key witness in the Madeleine McCann case claimed yesterday that Portuguese police failed to take his evidence seriously.https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/madeleine-mccann-key-witness-accuses-2433328
-
It wasn't down to them to publicise the 'Victoria Becham lookalike' either, but they did.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2009/aug/06/victoria-beckham-lookalike-madeleine-mccann
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/madeleine-mccann-key-witness-accuses-2433328
-
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/madeleine-mccann-key-witness-accuses-2433328
Is that an answer?
-
Is that an answer?
It is a link to the topic presently under discussion. What do you think is wrong with it?
-
It is a link to the topic presently under discussion. What do you think is wrong with it?
i don't think it mentions the fact that the McCanns chose not to publicise the Exton e-fits.
-
i don't think it mentions the fact that the McCanns chose not to publicise the Exton e-fits.
Strange behaviour for parents who have publicly avowed to search for Madeleine.
-
Strange behaviour for parents who have publicly avowed to search for Madeleine.
It was certainly a stone left unturned.
-
It was certainly a stone left unturned.
The parents goave the e-fits directly to the police. Do you consider that this action should have been investigated as suspicious? *%87
-
The parents goave the e-fits directly to the police. Do you consider that this action should have been investigated as suspicious? *%87
They initially withheld them. Fact!
-
The parents goave the e-fits directly to the police. Do you consider that this action should have been investigated as suspicious? *%87
To which police force (s) were the e-fits given in late 2008?
-
i don't think it mentions the fact that the McCanns chose not to publicise the Exton e-fits.
Was that mentioned in the "McCanns appeal to the European Court of Human Rights"? Must've missed it. Then again thread topics do tend meander about somewhat willy-nilly.
-
To which police force (s) were the e-fits given in late 2008?
Who mentioned late 2008? Are you disputing that the McCanns passed the e-fits to the police? If they were trying to cover them up why did they hand them over to the Portuguese and Leicestershire police, in fact why did they pay their PIs to approach the Smiths in the first place if they *knew* the Smiths had passed Gerry carrying a dead child?
-
To which police force (s) were the e-fits given in late 2008?
This is 2023. As far as making pejorative comment regarding events concerning witnesses in Madeleine's closed case of 2008 is concerned my opinion is that it equals groundhog day.
Was there any mention of it in "McCanns appeal to the European Court of Human Rights" do you know?
-
Who mentioned late 2008? Are you disputing that the McCanns passed the e-fits to the police? If they were trying to cover them up why did they hand them over to the Portuguese and Leicestershire police, in fact why did they pay their PIs to approach the Smiths in the first place if they *knew* the Smiths had passed Gerry carrying a dead child?
The results from the ECHR are really confusing. Who could have guessed so much discussion on efits took place.
-
This is 2023. As far as making pejorative comment regarding events concerning witnesses in Madeleine's closed case of 2008 is concerned my opinion is that it equals groundhog day.
Was there any mention of it in "McCanns appeal to the European Court of Human Rights" do you know?
I don’t think even Amaral has picked up on this critical piece of evidence of parental wrong-doing, which is odd seeing as how important it seems to be to the sceptic argument. Perhaps he’ll include it in his next bestseller (whenever that’s out).
-
What some people have clearly chosen to overlook is that there would have been no photofits at all if the parents hadn’t spent hundreds of thousands of pounds investigating Madeleine’s disappearance (aka their own crimes according to some).. Now why the hell would anybody do that, pray tell, and then hand over evidence incriminating themselves to two police forces when they could have sat on it forever, of put it through the shredder? You guys are simply not thinking logically or rationally.
-
What some people have clearly chosen to overlook is that there would have been no photofits at all if the parents hadn’t spent hundreds of thousands of pounds investigating Madeleine’s disappearance (aka their own crimes according to some).. Now why the hell would anybody do that, pray tell, and then hand over evidence incriminating themselves to two police forces when they could have sat on it forever, of put it through the shredder? You guys are simply not thinking logically or rationally.
Logic or rationality or thinking are not words which immediately spring to mind as being part of the sceptic lexicon.
-
Exton submitted his report to Madeleine's Fund in November 2008, recommending the release of the e-fits and the revised timeline, but the relationship between the Fund and the company had soured, and the Fund's lawyers warned Exton that the report and its e-fits had to remain confidential.
The Fund did not release the Smith e-fits; a spokesperson told the Sunday Times that the Oakley report had been "hypercritical of the people involved ... It just wouldn't be conducive to the investigation to have that report publicly declared because ... the newspapers would have been all over it. And it would have been completely distracting." Instead the Fund focused on the Tanner sighting, even though Tanner had not seen the man's face. Kate McCann did not include the Smith e-fits with the other images of suspects in her book, Madeleine (2011), even though she suggested that both the Tanner and Smith sightings were crucial.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disappearance_of_Madeleine_McCann
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2478087/Why-Madeleine-McCann-suspect-E-fits-kept-secret-5-years.html
http://m.theaustralian.com.au/news/world/madeleine-mccann-e-fit-pictures-overlooked-for-5-years/story-fnb64oi6-1226748119500
http://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/latest-news/347672/Maddie-Crimewatch-pictures-kept-secret-for-five-years
http://www.thestar.ie/star/e-fit-of-maddie-kidnap-suspect-was-suppressed-five-years-ago-35302/
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/madeleinemccann/10407664/Madeleine-McCann-critical-new-evidence-is-from-five-year-old-suppressed-report.html
-
They got private eyes to obtain e-fits, that definitely weren't Gerry, then ignored the advice from said experts that they be released immediately, even though this could well have been the abductor & couldn't possibly have been Gerry anyway, because he was at the tapas wasn't he.
-
Gerry then described the e-fits, when finally they were released by SY, as being "so important to them".
https://youtu.be/OZ8jmdWlB8Y?t=2033
-
What some people have clearly chosen to overlook is that there would have been no photofits at all if the parents hadn’t spent hundreds of thousands of pounds investigating Madeleine’s disappearance (aka their own crimes according to some).. Now why the hell would anybody do that, pray tell, and then hand over evidence incriminating themselves to two police forces when they could have sat on it forever, of put it through the shredder? You guys are simply not thinking logically or rationally.
You have missed the fact that Exton kept copies, so the evidence couldn't easily be suppressed. When asked by OG he gave them his copies, after they got permission from the McCanns.
-
You have missed the fact that Exton kept copies, so the evidence couldn't easily be suppressed. When asked by OG he gave them his copies, after they got permission from the McCanns.
Why did they get permission off the McCanns if the latter were intent on suppressing them? You have missed the rest of my post. Why invest hundreds of thousands of pounds investigating a crime for which you were responsible and getting photifits produced of yourself in the act of committing said crime?
-
Why did they get permission off the McCanns if the latter were intent on suppressing them? You have missed the rest of my post. Why invest hundreds of thousands of pounds investigating a crime for which you were responsible and getting photifits produced of yourself in the act of committing said crime?
Did the McCanns know their private eyes would be obtaining e-fits, from the Smiths? Were they interviewed & obtained specifically at the request of the McCanns?
What were the McCanns supposed to do with all that fund money, donated to help find Madeleine?
I imagine the trustees & major donors of the fund might be slightly curious why the McCanns never hired anyone to look for her at all.
-
Why did they get permission off the McCanns if the latter were intent on suppressing them? You have missed the rest of my post. Why invest hundreds of thousands of pounds investigating a crime for which you were responsible and getting photifits produced of yourself in the act of committing said crime?
Because Exton had been threatened with legal action if he shared the information with anyone. OG had to get the McCann's permission therefore.
-
i don't think it mentions the fact that the McCanns chose not to publicise the Exton e-fits.
Maybe because they weren't able to publicise the e-fits, maybe that was up to the Police.
-
Because Exton had been threatened with legal action if he shared the information with anyone. OG had to get the McCann's permission therefore.
So if Exton were bound in law not to share the information why did the McCanns give permission for the e-fits to be released if they were so damning? How did the police even know of their existence in the first place? did the police specifically ask for the e-fits but weren't interested in any of the other information that Exton had gathered? Why, having received the e-fits which some consider so vitally relevant, did the police eventually go on to re-open an investigation into stranger abduction do you think?
You have still failed to address the rest of my post. The McCanns were under no obligation to set up a fund to investigate their own crimes, yet according to some that is precisely what they did. Do you think this is credible behaviour? If they realised that any donations could only be used for the purposes of investigating a crime they themselves had committed (otherwise people would raise an eyebrow), they could simply have handed over any donations to a missing persons charity (as they were so frequently chastised for not doing so by their detractors), claiming early on that they had come to terms with the fact that Madeleine was not coming back, then slinking off into the shadows, and not bothered to write a million pound book to fund yet more investigations into their own crimes. Let's at least acknowledge that such actions, if true, are incredibly bizarre and unprecedented in the history of similar such crimes.
-
Because Exton had been threatened with legal action if he shared the information with anyone. OG had to get the McCann's permission therefore.
The McCanns have been critised by police chief Carlos Anjos described the move as 'another diversion manoeuvre by the McCanns'. Under Portuguese law the couple are not allowed to undertake their own investigations while the police probe is ongoing. CRG is instead said to be focusing on other countries including Spain and Morocco, where the couple believe four-year-old Madeleine may have been taken after being kidnapped on May 3. However, the news sparked an immediate reaction from officers in Portugal, where the McCanns have been named as "arguidos" or formal suspects in their daughter's disappearance.
http://netk.net.au/Madeleine/Madeleine30.asp
-
I believe the McCann's were reluctant to publish the E-fits the Private Investigators managed to get because they feared backlash from the Portuguese Police. It was an investigation in Portugal therefore it was up to the Portuguese to publish them.
The Victoria Beckham E-fit was not linked to the Portuguese investigation.
-
So if Exton were bound in law not to share the information why did the McCanns give permission for the e-fits to be released if they were so damning? How did the police even know of their existence in the first place? did the police specifically ask for the e-fits but weren't interested in any of the other information that Exton had gathered? Why, having received the e-fits which some consider so vitally relevant, did the police eventually go on to re-open an investigation into stranger abduction do you think?
You have still failed to address the rest of my post. The McCanns were under no obligation to set up a fund to investigate their own crimes, yet according to some that is precisely what they did. Do you think this is credible behaviour? If they realised that any donations could only be used for the purposes of investigating a crime they themselves had committed (otherwise people would raise an eyebrow), they could simply have handed over any donations to a missing persons charity (as they were so frequently chastised for not doing so by their detractors), claiming early on that they had come to terms with the fact that Madeleine was not coming back, then slinking off into the shadows, and not bothered to write a million pound book to fund yet more investigations into their own crimes. Let's at least acknowledge that such actions, if true, are incredibly bizarre and unprecedented in the history of similar such crimes.
Did you know an ex inspector also wrote a book about the case? Yeah, he called it The Truth Of The Lie, it could be read inside a day, &, according to Kate's testimony, the book sounded credible. Kate then wrote her own account of the truth, to address discrepancies & project her own narrative. Well anyway, the McCanns failed miserably in their lengthy attempt to have the inspectors book banned by the way.
-
Maybe because they weren't able to publicise the e-fits, maybe that was up to the Police.
At the time the only people investigating Madeleine's disappearance were the McCann's PI's, apparently.
-
At the time the only people investigating Madeleine's disappearance were the McCann's PI's, apparently.
Apparently?
-
Apparently?
That's what they said.
-
That's what they said.
That's what who said?
-
@ Mr Gray.
The necessity for a factual basis upon which Amaral's thesis was based doesn't mean it had to be the truth. It means it had to be factual. The PJ files definitely contained the facts which he used to reach his conclusions.
-
@ Mr Gray.
The necessity for a factual basis upon which Amaral's thesis was based doesn't mean it had to be the truth. It means it had to be factual. The PJ files definitely contained the facts which he used to reach his
So it's a fact that CB murdered Maddie because that's what the BKA believes... Thanks for the clarification ok
-
We're back to facts that are not the truth (&^&
-
I blame Megan and Harry and the fact that the truth can now be viewed completely subjectively.
-
So it's a fact that CB murdered Maddie because that's what the BKA believes... Thanks for the clarification ok
It may be a fact that the BKA and Wolters believe that. It doesn't mean that they can publicly state, as a fact, that CB murdered Madeleine.
-
It may be a fact that the BKA and Wolters believe that. It doesn't mean that they can publicly state, as a fact, that CB murdered Madeleine.
But they have and no one's been sued or sacked. Very strange....
-
But they have and no one's been sued or sacked. Very strange....
I suggest you take your own advice and wait and see.
-
I suggest you take your own advice and wait and see.
I was simply stating a truthful fact, one you're obviously not keen on! @)(++(*
-
I was simply stating a truthful fact, one you're obviously not keen on! @)(++(*
I believe CB's lawyer has registered a complaint. If it's relevant it will need to be addressed by the authorities if the case ever comes to trial. If it doesn't come to trial then CB can choose to sue.
-
I believe CB's lawyer has registered a complaint. If it's relevant it will need to be addressed by the authorities if the case ever comes to trial. If it doesn't come to trial then CB can choose to sue.
If CB threatens to sue, HCW can simply resign and publish a bestselling book about CB's involvement in Madeleine's disappearance and make a fortune, and there's nothing CB or his lawyer can do about it, right?
-
It may be a fact that the BKA and Wolters believe that. It doesn't mean that they can publicly state, as a fact, that CB murdered Madeleine.
Yet that's exactly what the Portuguese court did..claiming
Eddie's alert to cadaver odour was a fact..
That gave the thesis a supposed factual basis
-
I believe CB's lawyer has registered a complaint. If it's relevant it will need to be addressed by the authorities if the case ever comes to trial. If it doesn't come to trial then CB can choose to sue.
What makes you believe a complaint has been issued... Must bee strong..concrete evidence of you believe it
-
Yet that's exactly what the Portuguese court did..claiming
Eddie's alert to cadaver odour was a fact..
That gave the thesis a supposed factual basis
When everyone knows Eddie was just alerting to Sean's Sea Bass Sandwiches & the MET have irrefutable EMWTIACABAS.
-
1.2. In the appealed acórdão the following facts are considered proven :
1. The applicants Gerald McCann and Kate (sic) are married to each other.
2. The applicant Madeleine McCann was born on 12.5.2003 , daughter of Kate McCann and Gerald McCann.
3. The applicant Sean McCann was born on 1/2/2005, son of Kate McCann and Gerald McCann.
4. The applicant Amelie McCann was born on 1/2/2005 , daughter of Kate McCann and Gerald McCann.
5. The applicant Madeleine McCann has been missing since 3/5/2007 , resulting in the criminal investigation n° 201/07.0 GALGS, opened by the prosecutor of Portimão.
6. The dogs Eddie and Keela, from the British police, have detected human blood and cadaver scent in the apartment 5A of the Ocean Club.
7. The dogs Eddie and Keela, from the British police, have detected human blood and cadaver scent in the vehicle rented by the applicants Kate McCann and Gerald McCann after Madeleine's disappearance.
8. The applicants Kate McCann and Gerald McCann were constituted (by lawyer) assisted witnesses (arguidos) in the criminal investigation.
9. On 10/9/2007 (pp. 2587-2602 of the criminal investigation), Chief-Inspector Tavares de Almeida wrote a report and particularly the following :
"Given what we could establish, the facts point towards the death of Madeleine McCann during the evening of May 3 2007, in the apartment 5A of Praia da Luz Ocean Club resort, occupied by the McCann couple and their three children (p. 2599) (... )
Could any of my critics...including John...expalin why facts 6 and 7 were considered proven......and why the mccanns lawyers never questioned them.
These were the facts presented to the ECHR and on whcih their judgement was based. its not the ECHRs job to question the accepted fcats in the case...its not their role to act as a 4th court and retry the case.
Based on the proven facts the ECHR had no option other than to rule in Amarals favour
-
Cipriano trial...
E.VII. There was also no insurmountable contradiction in the motivation resulting from the fact that the traces collected through the projectina technique were not understood to belong to the deceased CC and the understanding that the traces of human blood collected in the house where the facts took place were hers, or between this conclusion and that, due to the cleaning carried out by defendant BB, it was not possible to determine the DNA of said blood.
This is because it was through many other pieces of evidence that it was concluded that the blood that was collected in the house was the minor's blood, in no way connecting these hematic traces with those collected using the projectin technique (which causes other bodily fluids to appear).
Even though the alleged contradiction could only exist if there were, in turn, laboratory elements that ruled out the possibility that the blood belonged to the victim, which did not happen.
There are therefore no contradictory facts given as proven in this matter.
so here... because there was no evidence to contradict and the blood was not tested...
It was accepted as proven that the blood belonged to Joanna
-
Cipriano trial...
E.VII. There was also no insurmountable contradiction in the motivation resulting from the fact that the traces collected through the projectina technique were not understood to belong to the deceased CC and the understanding that the traces of human blood collected in the house where the facts took place were hers, or between this conclusion and that, due to the cleaning carried out by defendant BB, it was not possible to determine the DNA of said blood.
This is because it was through many other pieces of evidence that it was concluded that the blood that was collected in the house was the minor's blood, in no way connecting these hematic traces with those collected using the projectin technique (which causes other bodily fluids to appear).
Even though the alleged contradiction could only exist if there were, in turn, laboratory elements that ruled out the possibility that the blood belonged to the victim, which did not happen.
There are therefore no contradictory facts given as proven in this matter.
so here... because there was no evidence to contradict and the blood was not tested...
It was accepted as proven that the blood belonged to Joanna
astounding logic.
-
Is there any point in revisiting the same old arguments about the libel trial and the ECHR application by the McCann? The facts are that the McCanns were unsuccessful in both cases - it's all over and done with and can't be changed. Those who predicted different outcomes were wrong.
-
astounding logic.
Ive put up two points re portuguese justice...interesting points....yet all Gunit can respond...and she thinks shes more clever, intelligent and knowledgable than I am, is....well you were wrong about the ECHR verdict...pathetic sceptic logic/reasoning.
-
Is there any point in revisiting the same old arguments about the libel trial and the ECHR application by the McCann? The facts are that the McCanns were unsuccessful in both cases - it's all over and done with and can't be changed. Those who predicted different outcomes were wrong.
its quite ironic that the only reason I commented on it was the fact that you raised it...how daft is that. Having been shown how little you understand it and how you cannot answer the points I raise you want to run away. Theres a sceptic on twitter who got his prediction right....his reasoning...the ECHR ruled for portugal because the mccanns are liars....you probably think hes more clever..intelligent and knowledgeable tahn I am...LOL.
Getting a question right when being totally ignorant as to why the answer is what it is is totally inferior to getting it wrong but having a thorough understanding of the principle involved
-
Ive put up two points re portuguese justice...interesting points....yet all Gunit can respond...and she thinks shes more clever, intelligent and knowledgable than I am, is....well you were wrong about the ECHR verdict...pathetic sceptic logic/reasoning.
Did you expect the Portuguese courts or the ECHR to contradict or question what was said in the PJ files released after the archiving?
-
Is there any point in revisiting the same old arguments about the libel trial and the ECHR application by the McCann? The facts are that the McCanns were unsuccessful in both cases - it's all over and done with and can't be changed. Those who predicted different outcomes were wrong.
He's had a kicking over it on twitter so he's back to where he thinks its less rough.
-
He's had a kicking over it on twitter so he's back to where he thinks its less rough.
It's a bit sad that you are following Mr Gray around the internet and reporting back here on his activities IMO.
-
Did you expect the Portuguese courts or the ECHR to contradict or question what was said in the PJ files released after the archiving?
The question I'm asking is why do lies appear in the proven facts... Simple question.. But you can't answer it
-
He's had a kicking over it on twitter so he's back to where he thinks its less rough.
On twitter I took part in a live discussion.. That's live speech.. Me against 6 sceptics..Live debate
Isabelle Mcfadden.. A leading sceptic.. Said I was of a different calibre.. And congratulate d me on my knowledge and delivery.. I tied them in knots.only a stupid sceptic could equate that to a good kicking
-
It's a bit sad that you are following Mr Gray around the internet and reporting back here on his activities IMO.
A bit pathetic, actually.
-
The question I'm asking is why do lies appear in the proven facts... Simple question.. But you can't answer it
That question isn't relevant, as the judge of the first instance told Gerry McCann in 2014;
GMC – But the book mentions facts that aren't true.
Judge – To decide that there are already forensic experts. We are not here to prove if the contents of the book are truthful or not. Here we are only trying to establish if the freedom of expression of the defendants has affected the rights of the claimants. This court cannot be a substitute of the criminal investigation. [Turns to the interpreter] Tell the gentleman that he is excused.
-
Did you expect the Portuguese courts or the ECHR to contradict or question what was said in the PJ files released after the archiving?
Think I am naïve if you wish, but I rather expected the files which reflected the evidence to prevail (for example those reflecting the truth of the matter re the FSS forensic conclusions) rather than the ones which propounded an exceedingly flawed version of events which existed only in the flawed mind and unworkable theories as outlined in Amaral, the chief investigators book.
Worth bearing in mind that Amaral was sacked from the investigation. Not surprising from a man who though Calpol was a sedative and not an analgesic.
-
That question isn't relevant, as the judge of the first instance told Gerry McCann in 2014;
GMC – But the book mentions facts that aren't true.
Judge – To decide that there are already forensic experts. We are not here to prove if the contents of the book are truthful or not. Here we are only trying to establish if the freedom of expression of the defendants has affected the rights of the claimants. This court cannot be a substitute of the criminal investigation. [Turns to the interpreter] Tell the gentleman that he is excused.
Very glad you raised that point.
So the judge in the first instance says they are not there to establish facts...thats FACTS...so admits no establishment of facts...and the ECHR state the book has a factual bias...cant you see that makes no sense
-
Did you expect the Portuguese courts or the ECHR to contradict or question what was said in the PJ files released after the archiving?
you seem to be understanding a little better now...your post make my point perfectly...The ECHR do not question the facts...that should have been done by the mccanns lawyers ata n earlier stage
The question is how...why ..and when were the proven facts established
-
That question isn't relevant, as the judge of the first instance told Gerry McCann in 2014;
GMC – But the book mentions facts that aren't true.
Judge – To decide that there are already forensic experts. We are not here to prove if the contents of the book are truthful or not. Here we are only trying to establish if the freedom of expression of the defendants has affected the rights of the claimants. This court cannot be a substitute of the criminal investigation. [Turns to the interpreter] Tell the gentleman that he is excused.
In 2014 the McCanns had achieved their aim.
Police investigations were in progress into the disappearance of Madeleine McCann.
From thereon in they had made their point which I think rather cements opinion that the extraordinary ECHR decision against them is an irrelevance.
Interestingly their initial motivation in taking legal action in Portugal was as a result of their belief that Amaral's book and media career built on denigrating them was impeding their search for Madeleine.
That would be an informed opinion. Considering that at the time their private detectives were the only ones actively searching for Madeleine and the only source of funding for that was from private contribution.
I find it interesting that Amaral has continued his vendetta until the present day against the investigation for Madeleine and propagating slurs against her parents.
I think today's situation is of as much relevance to Madeleine's case with Amaral's recent failed attempts to undermine the present German investigation as was the initial action taken to prevent the damage he was doing.
Kate and Gerry knew from experience that Amaral's book etc damaged Madeleine's investigation right from the start. One wonders why he continues doing that.
-
Very glad you raised that point.
So the judge in the first instance says they are not there to establish facts...thats FACTS...so admits no establishment of facts...and the ECHR state the book has a factual bias...cant you see that makes no sense
The judge actually used the word 'truth', that's TRUTH, not facts. Perhaps this post will help you to understand;
Another example of how failure to read correctly leads people down blind alleys. Elsewhere on the internet there is much kerfuffle over the "Proved Facts" included in the judgement.
Much is being made of phases such as:
"Dogs of the British police "Eddie" and "Keela" detected brands odor of human blood and body in apartment 5a of the Ocean Club [point AR) of undisputed]. 7.Dogs of the British police "Eddie" and "Keela" detected odors of human blood and body in a vehicle rented by the authors Kate McCann and Gerald McCann after the disappearance of Madeleine"
"The minor Madeleine McCann died in the apartment 5A of the Ocean Club resort, on the night of May 3rd of 2007"
" Kate McCann and Gerald McCann are involved in the occultation of the cadaver of their child Madeleine McCann"
"From what was obtained until now, everything points out that the McCann, as self-defence, didn't want to deliver immediately and voluntarily the cadaver, existing a strong possibility that the same was transported from the initial place of deposition. This situation is susceptible to raise questions about the circumstances under which the death of the minor occurred."
A more nuanced reading shows that these are not "Proven Facts" in themselves, but the "Proven Fact" is that these statements were made in the previous reports rather than it was a proven fact that they were true. The court accepts that it is a fact that these statements occurin legal documents. Amaral needed this to claim that his book was based on what someone else had written.
So we will have another myth growing up that the Judge in this case accepted that Eddie and Keela reacted, that the McCanns hid the body, yet still found against the McCanns, when all the judge has found is that those statements occurred in another document.
I suspect the post mortem examination on this will go on for days or weeks and become an established factoid.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=6257.msg236094#msg236094
It did indeed become an established factoid, with those who misunderstood what the judge was doing still clinging to it like superglue.
-
The judge actually used the word 'truth', that's TRUTH, not facts. Perhaps this post will help you to understand;
Another example of how failure to read correctly leads people down blind alleys. Elsewhere on the internet there is much kerfuffle over the "Proved Facts" included in the judgement.
Much is being made of phases such as:
"Dogs of the British police "Eddie" and "Keela" detected brands odor of human blood and body in apartment 5a of the Ocean Club [point AR) of undisputed]. 7.Dogs of the British police "Eddie" and "Keela" detected odors of human blood and body in a vehicle rented by the authors Kate McCann and Gerald McCann after the disappearance of Madeleine"
"The minor Madeleine McCann died in the apartment 5A of the Ocean Club resort, on the night of May 3rd of 2007"
" Kate McCann and Gerald McCann are involved in the occultation of the cadaver of their child Madeleine McCann"
"From what was obtained until now, everything points out that the McCann, as self-defence, didn't want to deliver immediately and voluntarily the cadaver, existing a strong possibility that the same was transported from the initial place of deposition. This situation is susceptible to raise questions about the circumstances under which the death of the minor occurred."
A more nuanced reading shows that these are not "Proven Facts" in themselves, but the "Proven Fact" is that these statements were made in the previous reports rather than it was a proven fact that they were true. The court accepts that it is a fact that these statements occurin legal documents. Amaral needed this to claim that his book was based on what someone else had written.
So we will have another myth growing up that the Judge in this case accepted that Eddie and Keela reacted, that the McCanns hid the body, yet still found against the McCanns, when all the judge has found is that those statements occurred in another document.
I suspect the post mortem examination on this will go on for days or weeks and become an established factoid.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=6257.msg236094#msg236094
It did indeed become an established factoid, with those who misunderstood what the judge was doing still clinging to it like superglue.
OMG, are you actually quoting the infamous Debunker to make your case?! Well that's a turn up, I must say....
-
OMG, are you actually quoting the infamous Debunker to make your case?! Well that's a turn up, I must say....
I was delighted to have a reminder of OxfordBloo and the excellent contributions s/he made to the forum. It also called to mind the relentless attack and lack of respect to which she was subjected as a result of what I thought were his/her informed and informative posts. All quite ironic methinks!
-
OMG, are you actually quoting the infamous Debunker to make your case?! Well that's a turn up, I must say....
Never heard of him/her. Carana agreed with the above post and so do I.
-
I was delighted to have a reminder of OxfordBloo and the excellent contributions s/he made to the forum. It also called to mind the relentless attack and lack of respect to which she was subjected as a result of what I thought were his/her informed and informative posts. All quite ironic methinks!
OxfordBloo certainly helped my understanding of the Portuguese legal system.
-
OxfordBloo certainly helped my understanding of the Portuguese legal system.
Ah, Debunker. I knew him well.
-
Never heard of him/her. Carana agreed with the above post and so do I.
I find it hard to believe you have never heard of Debunker. He was (is) a very interesting person, very intelligent, an expert at debunking sceptic myths, and as such was Enemy Number 1 amongst the sceptic community for a number of years. You'd do well to read all his contributions to this forum.
-
Ah, Debunker. I knew him well.
Moi aussi. I wonder where he is now? I did know his RL id for a while but have since forgotten. Of course he blew it with "us lot" for reasons I can't remember now either. Deb, if you're reading this now, come back!!!!
-
I find it hard to believe you have never heard of Debunker. He was (is) a very interesting person, very intelligent, an expert at debunking sceptic myths, and as such was Enemy Number 1 amongst the sceptic community for a number of years. You'd do well to read all his contributions to this forum.
Well that's not whose post I was quoting afaik.
-
In 2014 the McCanns had achieved their aim.
Police investigations were in progress into the disappearance of Madeleine McCann.
From thereon in they had made their point which I think rather cements opinion that the extraordinary ECHR decision against them is an irrelevance.
Interestingly their initial motivation in taking legal action in Portugal was as a result of their belief that Amaral's book and media career built on denigrating them was impeding their search for Madeleine.
That would be an informed opinion. Considering that at the time their private detectives were the only ones actively searching for Madeleine and the only source of funding for that was from private contribution.
I find it interesting that Amaral has continued his vendetta until the present day against the investigation for Madeleine and propagating slurs against her parents.
I think today's situation is of as much relevance to Madeleine's case with Amaral's recent failed attempts to undermine the present German investigation as was the initial action taken to prevent the damage he was doing.
Kate and Gerry knew from experience that Amaral's book etc damaged Madeleine's investigation right from the start. One wonders why he continues doing that.
The German investigation didn't need a great deal of undermining, if we're honest. Wolters doesn't really have anything of substance against CB, that's the problem, & it could well be because the conclusions of the first investigation were correct, couldn't it.
-
Well that's not whose post I was quoting afaik.
You were quoting OxfordBloo were you not? That is Debunker.
-
1.2. In the appealed acórdão the following facts are considered proven :
1. The applicants Gerald McCann and Kate (sic) are married to each other.
2. The applicant Madeleine McCann was born on 12.5.2003 , daughter of Kate McCann and Gerald McCann.
3. The applicant Sean McCann was born on 1/2/2005, son of Kate McCann and Gerald McCann.
4. The applicant Amelie McCann was born on 1/2/2005 , daughter of Kate McCann and Gerald McCann.
5. The applicant Madeleine McCann has been missing since 3/5/2007 , resulting in the criminal investigation n° 201/07.0 GALGS, opened by the prosecutor of Portimão.
6. The dogs Eddie and Keela, from the British police, have detected human blood and cadaver scent in the apartment 5A of the Ocean Club.
7. The dogs Eddie and Keela, from the British police, have detected human blood and cadaver scent in the vehicle rented by the applicants Kate McCann and Gerald McCann after Madeleine's disappearance.
8. The applicants Kate McCann and Gerald McCann were constituted (by lawyer) assisted witnesses (arguidos) in the criminal investigation.
9. On 10/9/2007 (pp. 2587-2602 of the criminal investigation), Chief-Inspector Tavares de Almeida wrote a report and particularly the following :
"Given what we could establish, the facts point towards the death of Madeleine McCann during the evening of May 3 2007, in the apartment 5A of Praia da Luz Ocean Club resort, occupied by the McCann couple and their three children (p. 2599) (... )
Could any of my critics...including John...expalin why facts 6 and 7 were considered proven......and why the mccanns lawyers never questioned them.
These were the facts presented to the ECHR and on whcih their judgement was based. its not the ECHRs job to question the accepted fcats in the case...its not their role to act as a 4th court and retry the case.
Based on the proven facts the ECHR had no option other than to rule in Amarals favour
Points 6 and 7 were in the first judgement which the McCanns won, how can they contest their own victory ?
-
You were quoting OxfordBloo were you not? That is Debunker.
Can you prove that, I wonder. No matter. Whoever it is they understand 'proven facts' which so many supporters haven't managed to do.
-
Can you prove that, I wonder. No matter. Whoever it is they understand 'proven facts' which so many supporters haven't managed to do.
No need to prove it. I know who he was and so does VS. Debunker came and went with different names because he was getting so much hassle from Sceptics, although not alone in that. But he was exceptionally good at it.
-
Incidentally, we all met up on The Mirror Forum, which was a long time ago and then went on from there together. He was a warrior who often kept us all going.
-
Can you prove that, I wonder. No matter. Whoever it is they understand 'proven facts' which so many supporters haven't managed to do.
Of course I can't prove it but I do know if for a fact. Many here know it too. I understand "proven facts" btw, doesn't mean I think the verdict was fair.
-
Of course I can't prove it but I do know if for a fact. Many here know it too. I understand "proven facts" btw, doesn't mean I think the verdict was fair.
The Verdict clearly wasn't fair, but it is possible to understand. However, it has done no real harm to the search for Madeleine. In fact it has helped to keep Madeleine in The News, so worth every penny. Presuming that The McCanns have to pay anything from The Fund. I would like to see Amaral try to enforce that one.
-
Can you prove that, I wonder. No matter. Whoever it is they understand 'proven facts' which so many supporters haven't managed to do.
You mean Portuguese proven facts which are neither proven nor facts.
-
OxfordBloo certainly helped my understanding of the Portuguese legal system.
Could you explain to us in that case what a proven fact is according to the Portuguese courts
-
Could you explain to us in that case what a proven fact is according to the Portuguese courts
It's a proven fact that the police wrote in the interim report that the dog alerts were definitely to a cadaver. The fact is they were wrong to claim that as a fact, but the court didn't care about that, don't ask me why not. If an interim report into CB concluded that Madeleine died in his camper van based on dog alerts then HCW would be entitled to write a whole book about how he dunnit and that would be perfectly OK as far as the ECHR is concerned.
-
The Verdict clearly wasn't fair, but it is possible to understand. However, it has done no real harm to the search for Madeleine. In fact it has helped to keep Madeleine in The News, so worth every penny. Presuming that The McCanns have to pay anything from The Fund. I would like to see Amaral try to enforce that one.
Your opinion. The judges were quite satisfied with their decision and that's what counts
-
Your opinion. The judges were quite satisfied with their decision and that's what counts
Some of us like to understand how things work.. We find it interesting
-
Could you explain to us in that case what a proven fact is according to the Portuguese courts
I've tried, believe me. Read what OxfordBloo said and forget your supporter myth.
-
I've tried, believe me. Read what OxfordBloo said and forget your supporter myth.
I don't see you have explained it.. Could you briefly do it again or provide a link..
-
Some of us like to understand how things work.. We find it interesting
Doesn't matter how it works. Decision made. No amount of pointless discussion will alter that.
-
Doesn't matter how it works. Decision made. No amount of pointless discussion will alter that.
A decision was made back in 2007 not to charge the McCanns with either child neglect or hiding their child’s body, shame you weren’t around to hand out your helpful advice then, it could have saved us all millions of man and woman hours pointlessly “reasearching” aka arguing.
-
The German investigation didn't need a great deal of undermining, if we're honest. Wolters doesn't really have anything of substance against CB, that's the problem, & it could well be because the conclusions of the first investigation were correct, couldn't it.
Perhaps "undermining" is the wrong word.
Although I'm not too sure what to call deliberately feeding and publicising the wrong information in response to a police appeal for assistance in a criminal case. Particularly one focusing on a missing child.
If you wish to comfort yourself that Amaral's investigation got anything right, allow me to direct you towards the private part of the forum which specifically addresses that question.
Maybe you will be able to add something to that thread which has escaped the attention of your fellow sceptics and is perhaps among the most underused on the forum.
Sometimes even sceptics can't bring themselves to defend the indefensible.
-
I've tried, believe me. Read what OxfordBloo said and forget your supporter myth.
You dont seem to be able to...as i recall times you tried made no sense at all. if you cant explain ...fair enough...but you should not claim you can if you dont
-
I don't see you have explained it.. Could you briefly do it again or provide a link..
Your understanding of 'proven facts' is wrong, just as your predictions about the ECHR were wrong. Accept that and move on, why don't you. I'm not interested in educating you.
-
Your understanding of 'proven facts' is wrong, just as your predictions about the ECHR were wrong. Accept that and move on, why don't you. I'm not interested in educating you.
Your post is totallly laughable..you simply cannot expalin it....it would be better if you were truthful.
You think I could be educated by someone who doesnt think cancer causes smoking...
John asked for a little better behavior...you as a moderator should respect theat. the truth is Ive caught you out.
I would like to understand how the portuguese courts arrive at proven facts...which are neither facts nor proven...the truth is you havent got a clue
-
Nobody has to explain anything. The legal wrangling is all over.
Best to move on and take yet another dogmatic stance over something else
-
The judge actually used the word 'truth', that's TRUTH, not facts. Perhaps this post will help you to understand;
Another example of how failure to read correctly leads people down blind alleys. Elsewhere on the internet there is much kerfuffle over the "Proved Facts" included in the judgement.
Much is being made of phases such as:
"Dogs of the British police "Eddie" and "Keela" detected brands odor of human blood and body in apartment 5a of the Ocean Club [point AR) of undisputed]. 7.Dogs of the British police "Eddie" and "Keela" detected odors of human blood and body in a vehicle rented by the authors Kate McCann and Gerald McCann after the disappearance of Madeleine"
"The minor Madeleine McCann died in the apartment 5A of the Ocean Club resort, on the night of May 3rd of 2007"
" Kate McCann and Gerald McCann are involved in the occultation of the cadaver of their child Madeleine McCann"
"From what was obtained until now, everything points out that the McCann, as self-defence, didn't want to deliver immediately and voluntarily the cadaver, existing a strong possibility that the same was transported from the initial place of deposition. This situation is susceptible to raise questions about the circumstances under which the death of the minor occurred."
A more nuanced reading shows that these are not "Proven Facts" in themselves, but the "Proven Fact" is that these statements were made in the previous reports rather than it was a proven fact that they were true. The court accepts that it is a fact that these statements occurin legal documents. Amaral needed this to claim that his book was based on what someone else had written.
So we will have another myth growing up that the Judge in this case accepted that Eddie and Keela reacted, that the McCanns hid the body, yet still found against the McCanns, when all the judge has found is that those statements occurred in another document.
I suspect the post mortem examination on this will go on for days or weeks and become an established factoid.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=6257.msg236094#msg236094
It did indeed become an established factoid, with those who misunderstood what the judge was doing still clinging to it like superglue.
The security padlock at the top has an orange slash line through it.
Also, the Http has no S on it. The page is not to be trusted. It is insecure and can be changed. That might already have happened !
After what you just said about not trusting webpages that are shown to be security faulty, I am astounded that you are quoting this
-
Your understanding of 'proven facts' is wrong, just as your predictions about the ECHR were wrong. Accept that and move on, why don't you. I'm not interested in educating you.
You couldn't if you tried, sad to say. I don't understand what causes nastiness, but you have no chance of implicating The McCanns. And so you are doomed to failure.
-
Nobody has to explain anything. The legal wrangling is all over.
Best to move on and take yet another dogmatic stance over something else
Some people just can't accept it when they get it wrong.
-
Some people just can't accept it when they get it wrong.
A lesson that you should consider. Your arrogance stuns me at times.
-
Some people just can't accept it when they get it wrong.
Well worth looking in before looking out.
-
A lesson that you should consider. Your arrogance stuns me at times.
Your ability to ignore Mr Gray's arrogance amazes me!
-
Some people just can't accept it when they get it wrong.
The fact is you claim knowledge and intelligence and you dont display either. I absolutely do not understand how the portuguese courts stated that alerts to cadaver were proven... that is clearly not true. I dont beleive you understand why and thats why you continually divert.
Ive shown a snip from the Cipriano judgement showing taht because there was no proof it wasnt Joanas blood it was fair to assume it was...that became a proven fact ...can you explain that too
-
Your ability to ignore Mr Gray's arrogance amazes me!
Ive no objection to being called arrogant...better than being considered a fool then opening your mouth and proving it
-
The fact is you claim knowledge and intelligence and you dont display either. I absolutely do not understand how the portuguese courts stated that alerts to cadaver were proven... that is clearly not true. I dont beleive you understand why and thats why you continually divert.
Ive shown a snip from the Cipriano judgement showing taht because there was no proof it wasnt Joanas blood it was fair to assume it was...that became a proven fact ...can you explain that too
Absolutely my last word. Opinions are allowed if they rest on a factual basis. Amaral's opinions rested on facts which were in the investigation files, including the fact that the dogs alerted to blood and cadaver in 5A and the car. His claim was proven.
Whether what was said about the alerts was true isn't the point, the point is did Amaral get his information from a verifiable source. He did, and the judges ratified it.
-
If noting else, this claim served to highlight the difference between UK & EU libel law. It's no surprise Amaral's books about Madeleine's case have never been published in the UK as the onus would have been on him to a actually prove his (libellous) claims were not falsehoods. No "proven facts" were ever proven in a criminal court.
Perhaps that's why some of us have such a hard time accepting that ECHR decided his right to free speech prevailed yet the McCanns, due to judicial secrecy laws, were denied the right to publicly defend themselves against all sorts of allegations from PJ sources prior to the book being published. The McCanns became public figures with their freedom of speech curtailed so the balance of human rights was already weighed against them.
Did his book damage the search? Maybe...in the eyes of the public rather than the authorities.
Did his book harm the McCanns' reputation? Probably not as much as the harm he'd already caused to both them and Madeleine during the investigation.
Ultimately, Madeleine's case has been kept in the public eye over the years by this prolonged lawsuit. Some of us hope that the result will come back to hit Portugal where it hurts.
All IMO.
-
If noting else, this claim served to highlight the difference between UK & EU libel law. It's no surprise Amaral's books about Madeleine's case have never been published in the UK as the onus would have been on him to a actually prove his (libellous) claims were not falsehoods. No "proven facts" were ever proven in a criminal court.
Perhaps that's why some of us have such a hard time accepting that ECHR decided his right to free speech prevailed yet the McCanns, due to judicial secrecy laws, were denied the right to publicly defend themselves against all sorts of allegations from PJ sources prior to the book being published. The McCanns became public figures with their freedom of speech curtailed so the balance of human rights was already weighed against them.
Did his book damage the search? Maybe...in the eyes of the public rather than the authorities.
Did his book harm the McCanns' reputation? Probably not as much as the harm he'd already caused to both them and Madeleine during the investigation.
Ultimately, Madeleine's case has been kept in the public eye over the years by this prolonged lawsuit. Some of us hope that the result will come back to hit Portugal where it hurts.
All IMO.
Why would you wish that ?
-
Why would you wish that ?
Retribution for at least some of the foreign victims failed by the State's justice system.
-
Retribution for at least some of the foreign victims failed by the State's justice system.
OK but why should that concern you ?
-
Absolutely my last word. Opinions are allowed if they rest on a factual basis. Amaral's opinions rested on facts which were in the investigation files, including the fact that the dogs alerted to blood and cadaver in 5A and the car. His claim was proven.
Whether what was said about the alerts was true isn't the point, the point is did Amaral get his information from a verifiable source. He did, and the judges ratified it.
Can you supply any evidence to show this opinion of yours is factual....no you cant..you are promoting a totallly unsupported opinon as fact...which just about sums up your opinions..worthless
-
Absolutely my last word. Opinions are allowed if they rest on a factual basis. Amaral's opinions rested on facts which were in the investigation files, including the fact that the dogs alerted to blood and cadaver in 5A and the car. His claim was proven.
Whether what was said about the alerts was true isn't the point, the point is did Amaral get his information from a verifiable source. He did, and the judges ratified it.
You really are struggling with your knowledge..could you provide a snip from the files where it says teh dog alerted to cadaver odour. It says the cadaver dog marked certain places ..not that the dog alerted to cadaver odour. There is no confirmation in the files the dog alert was to cadaver odour
-
Retribution for at least some of the foreign victims failed by the State's justice system.
There's no justice system in the world which doesn't have failures.
-
You really are struggling with your knowledge..could you provide a snip from the files where it says teh dog alerted to cadaver odour. It says the cadaver dog marked certain places ..not that the dog alerted to cadaver odour. There is no confirmation in the files the dog alert was to cadaver odour
It says so in the interim report doesn’t it?
-
OK but why should that concern you ?
If you’re not concerned about people receiving justice then what are you doing here? Oh wait I know, it’s for the shits and giggles, am I right?
-
There's no justice system in the world which doesn't have failures.
including the ECHR...thanks for highlighting that important fact
-
It says so in the interim report doesn’t it?
Amaral claims his thesis is based on the files....the fact that its clearly stated in the files that the alerts do not confirm cadaver odour means amarals book is based on lies...and not factual at all. No libel as Ive supplied evidence to support honest opinion
-
There's no justice system in the world which doesn't have failures.
Isn't that part of the reason we contribute to the miscarriage of justice forum?
What lessons do you think Portugal will learn from Madeleine's case if there are no repercussions and ex-officers are allowed to continue, with impunity, to visibly profit from their failures whilst in public service?
-
Isn't that part of the reason we contribute to the miscarriage of justice forum?
What lessons do you think Portugal will learn from Madeleine's case if there are no repercussions and ex-officers are allowed to continue, with impunity, to visibly profit from their failures whilst in public service?
I don't think it's up to the Portuguese authorities to interfere in anyone's right to the freedom of speech whether he's an ex police officer or not.
-
I don't think it's up to the Portuguese authorities to interfere in anyone's right to the freedom of speech whether he's an ex police officer or not.
According to your ridiculous reasoning my belief in CBs guilt has a factual basis.
You still havent expalined how the courts regard alert to cadaver as a proven fact...again....by your reasoning german courts could state CBs guilt is a proven fact....base on the opinion of the BKA
My arrogance upsets you...tough. Must remember to be super arrogant . Its difficult when my knowlledge and intelligence are so superior not to appear arrogant...LOL. you may well regret calling me arrogant
-
According to your ridiculous reasoning my belief in CBs guilt has a factual basis.
You still havent expalined how the courts regard alert to cadaver as a proven fact...again....by your reasoning german courts could state CBs guilt is a proven fact....base on the opinion of the BKA
My arrogance upsets you...tough. Must remember to be super arrogant . Its difficult when my knowlledge and intelligence are so superior not to appear arrogant...LOL. you may well regret calling me arrogant
I'm not obliged to explain anything to you. The Portuguese Courts ruled that Amaral didn't libel the McCanns and the ECHR ruled that Portugal didn't breach their human rights. You can accept that or you can continue to throw your toys out of your pram because you got it wrong. Your superior (?) attributes seem to have let you down, my friend.
-
I have never seen Davel as arrogant. Just a bit smarter than I am. This does not offend. I am only ever offended by arrogant ignorance. Of which there is much on this Forum. But it is here for all to see.
-
I'm not obliged to explain anything to you. The Portuguese Courts ruled that Amaral didn't libel the McCanns and the ECHR ruled that Portugal didn't breach their human rights. You can accept that or you can continue to throw your toys out of your pram because you got it wrong. Your superior (?) attributes seem to have let you down, my friend.
Wrong. The Court ruled that Amaral's Freedom of Speech was more important.
-
Isn't that part of the reason we contribute to the miscarriage of justice forum?
What lessons do you think Portugal will learn from Madeleine's case if there are no repercussions and ex-officers are allowed to continue, with impunity, to visibly profit from their failures whilst in public service?
Portugal's legal system is not really any of our concern - or that of any other country for that matter.
-
Portugal's legal system is not really any of our concern - or that of any other country for that matter.
It is if you get caught up in it, which many UK citizens have to their great cost over the years.
-
I'm not obliged to explain anything to you. The Portuguese Courts ruled that Amaral didn't libel the McCanns and the ECHR ruled that Portugal didn't breach their human rights. You can accept that or you can continue to throw your toys out of your pram because you got it wrong. Your superior (?) attributes seem to have let you down, my friend.
Where specifically did the court say no libel had been committed?
-
Portugal's legal system is not really any of our concern - or that of any other country for that matter.
Until a British Child goes missing. A British Child who is supposedly protected by her British Passport.
Portugal's long term abuse of Human Rights is legendary.
-
Until a British Child goes missing. A British Child who is supposedly protected by her British Passport.
Portugal's long term abuse of Human Rights is legendary.
It wasn't up to either Britain or the state of Portugal to protect Maddie.
That responsibility belonged to her parents.
-
Until a British Child goes missing. A British Child who is supposedly protected by her British Passport.
Portugal's long term abuse of Human Rights is legendary.
There are advantages to having a British Passport, but I don't think they include protection.
Please provide a cite for the legendary nature of Portugal's long term abuse of Human Rights.
-
There are advantages to having a British Passport, but I don't think they include protection.
Please provide a cite for the legendary nature of Portugal's long term abuse of Human Rights.
Legend has it, Portugal is worse than North Korea.
At least, that appears to be the belief among some.
-
There are advantages to having a British Passport, but I don't think they include protection.
Please provide a cite for the legendary nature of Portugal's long term abuse of Human Rights.
Try Google. Or not. I really don't care.
-
Until a British Child goes missing. A British Child who is supposedly protected by her British Passport.
Portugal's long term abuse of Human Rights is legendary.
That 'protection' extends only to assistance by the British Consular service. McCann got that.
-
Try Google. Or not. I really don't care.
But you do care. Your main concern most days is complaining about Portugal.
-
But you do care. Your main concern most days is complaining about Portugal.
Thanks for the compliment.
-
There are advantages to having a British Passport, but I don't think they include protection.
Please provide a cite for the legendary nature of Portugal's long term abuse of Human Rights.
please provide a cite for the definition of of "proven facts" comes from in portuguese courts
-
please provide a cite for the definition of of "proven facts" comes from in portuguese courts
Research it yourself. Or you can re-read this post, which you seemed to accept as you replied ; "Thanks Carana that makes perfect sense";
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=12011.msg655070#msg655070
-
Research it yourself. Or you can re-read this post, which you seemed to accept as you replied ; "Thanks Carana that makes perfect sense";
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=12011.msg655070#msg655070
you obviously dont understand what Carana posted.
She confirms that they are not proven nor facts and in the portuguese system could not be disputed.
So the ECHR based their decision on facts that were not facts and the McCanns were not able to dispute the lies in the files..Thats an injustice system not a justice system
-
Where specifically did the court say no libel had been committed?
@G-Unit
-
you obviously dont understand what Carana posted.
She confirms that they are not proven nor facts and in the portuguese system could not be disputed.
So the ECHR based their decision on facts that were not facts and the McCanns were not able to dispute the lies in the files..Thats an injustice system not a justice system
They were facts that were proved to have appeared in the files.
-
They were facts that were proved to have appeared in the files.
So any old lie will do as long as it is in The Files. That is the bottom line and the pits.
-
They were facts that were proved to have appeared in the files.
It would perhaps be more accurate to say it is a fact that incorrect information was contained in the files which formed the basis of Amaral’s defamatory book.
-
It would perhaps be more accurate to say it is a fact that incorrect information was contained in the files which formed the basis of Amaral’s defamatory book.
We all know this of course, even the thickest of Sceptics. But I don't think it matters all that much anymore. Madeleine is still in The News and The McCanns will never be indicted for anything. The incompetence of The Portuguese Justice System has gone a long way to ensure this, so they probably deserve an award for Stupid.
-
We all know this of course, even the thickest of Sceptics. But I don't think it matters all that much anymore. Madeleine is still in The News and The McCanns will never be indicted for anything. The incompetence of The Portuguese Justice System has gone a long way to ensure this, so they probably deserve an award for Stupid.
Yes, & she was murdered by Christian Brueckner. That is a proven fact.
-
They were facts that were proved to have appeared in the files.
you said you were going to educate instead youve opened yourself to ridicule ....LOL
They were not facts they were lies. If you cant see that its no wonder youre an anti..
I showed it to a masters student in international l law..she shard my opinion
-
So any old lie will do as long as it is in The Files. That is the bottom line and the pits.
The PJ were told by the British police what the dogs were trained to alert to. I don't think they can be accused of lying when they repeat in the files what they were told.
-
It would perhaps be more accurate to say it is a fact that incorrect information was contained in the files which formed the basis of Amaral’s defamatory book.
Provided by the British police.
-
The PJ were told by the British police what the dogs were trained to alert to. I don't think they can be accused of lying when they repeat in the files what they were told.
Just very stupid. Eh What.
-
Provided by the British police.
The British police told the Portuguese that the cadaver dogs alerted to a dead body in the apartment?
-
The British police told the Portuguese that the cadaver dogs alerted to a dead body in the apartment?
I very much doubt that. Even Martin Grime didn't say that.
Nope, Gunit has got it wrong again.
-
The British police told the Portuguese that the cadaver dogs alerted to a dead body in the apartment?
Who said that? Not me.
-
Who said that? Not me.
what are you talking about then?
-
The PJ were told by the British police what the dogs were trained to alert to. I don't think they can be accused of lying when they repeat in the files what they were told.
G
The PJ were clearly told it was possible or suggestive that the alerts were to cadavver
They were told no inference could bbe drawn from the alerts
No evidential reliability or valu
As ivee said many times Amaral and the PJ were either liars or stuppid
-
Yes, & she was murdered by Christian Brueckner. That is a proven fact.
On Portugals standards its a proven fact
-
what are you talking about then?
Read what I actually said.
-
Read what I actually said.
you said this
“The PJ were told by the British police what the dogs were trained to alert to. I don't think they can be accused of lying when they repeat in the files what they were told.”
Nothing wrong with that but that wasn’t the issue was it? It was the conclusion of the interim report that the dogs alerted to a cadaver in the apartment and that is what Amaral based his libellous book on. Get it now?
-
On Portugals standards its a proven fact
Yes, but I have it on good authority that evidence is only evidence when it can be proven.
-
you said this
“The PJ were told by the British police what the dogs were trained to alert to. I don't think they can be accused of lying when they repeat in the files what they were told.”
Nothing wrong with that but that wasn’t the issue was it? It was the conclusion of the interim report that the dogs alerted to a cadaver in the apartment and that is what Amaral based his libellous book on. Get it now?
The PJ were faced with alerts by the cadaver dog to two locations in 5A, to the McCann's hire car and to Kate McCann's clothes and nowhere else, deduced that there had been a cadaver, and that it was Madeleine's. It's hardly surprising that Amaral's book reached the same conclusion, is it?
-
The PJ were faced with alerts by the cadaver dog to two locations in 5A, to the McCann's hire car and to Kate McCann's clothes and nowhere else, deduced that there had been a cadaver, and that it was Madeleine's. It's hardly surprising that Amaral's book reached the same conclusion, is it?
Excepting of course, that Eddie wasn't a Cadaver Dog and nor was Keela. And No evidence that it was Madeleine anyway.
The PJ's deductions only mirror their determination to stitch up Kate McCann. And their stupidity.
-
Excepting of course, that Eddie wasn't a Cadaver Dog and nor was Keela. And No evidence that it was Madeleine anyway.
The PJ's deductions only mirror their determination to stitch up Kate McCann. And their stupidity.
You believe Kate was being stitched up. But that doesn't mean she actually was, & there's still no sign of the abductor after all these years, so maybe Madeleine died in the apartment aye.
-
The PJ were faced with alerts by the cadaver dog to two locations in 5A, to the McCann's hire car and to Kate McCann's clothes and nowhere else, deduced that there had been a cadaver, and that it was Madeleine's. It's hardly surprising that Amaral's book reached the same conclusion, is it?
That's an incredibly weak argument and shows your incredibly weak position . I've said for years amaral and the ph did not understand the evidence. They had no experience or knowledge of cadaver dogs and the relevance of the alerts was explained to them by the experts but they ignored it..you've proved they're an absolute bunch of clowns..
Youve also explained why the McCann's lost at the echr..on lies. Lies by amaral and the pj
-
That's an incredibly weak argument and shows your incredibly weak position . I've said for years amaral and the ph did not understand the evidence. They had no experience or knowledge of cadaver dogs and the relevance of the alerts was explained to them by the experts but they ignored it..you've proved they're an absolute bunch of clowns..
Youve also explained why the McCann's lost at the echr..on lies. Lies by amaral and the pj
I sincerely hope you can come to terms with it some day.
-
Excepting of course, that Eddie wasn't a Cadaver Dog and nor was Keela. And No evidence that it was Madeleine anyway.
The PJ's deductions only mirror their determination to stitch up Kate McCann. And their stupidity.
You think there was no cadaver dog? Is that semantics, expert opinion or blind belief like your belief that the PJ were out to 'get' Kate McCann?
I think any police force would have been suspicious of the child's parents given what happened when the dogs were used.
-
You think there was no cadaver dog? Is that semantics, expert opinion or blind belief like your belief that the PJ were out to 'get' Kate McCann?
I think any police force would have been suspicious of the child's parents given what happened when the dogs were used.
But not the world's finest police force though. They have considered the dog alerts & ruled the McCanns out entirely, which imo also explains why they can't solve the case.
-
You think there was no cadaver dog? Is that semantics, expert opinion or blind belief like your belief that the PJ were out to 'get' Kate McCann?
I think any police force would have been suspicious of the child's parents given what happened when the dogs were used.
Eddie was not a Cadaver Dog. Just a Fact. I don't engage in Semantics. That's your bag. You just aren't very good at it.
-
The PJ were faced with alerts by the cadaver dog to two locations in 5A, to the McCann's hire car and to Kate McCann's clothes and nowhere else, deduced that there had been a cadaver, and that it was Madeleine's. It's hardly surprising that Amaral's book reached the same conclusion, is it?
I have to agree. It's alright for some to criticise the PJ in hindsight but the evidence on the ground at the time was pretty damning towards the McCanns. The fact that Kate McCann showed a total reluctance to answer police questions when interviewed only served to highten police suspicions imo.
Martin Smith's intervention only served to solidify those suspicions so one can't really criticise the police on the ground for coming to the conclusions they came to in 2007.
-
Eddie was not a Cadaver Dog. Just a Fact. I don't engage in Semantics. That's your bag. You just aren't very good at it.
....& what are you good for exactly? Apart from insulting other members, editing posts you disagree with & banging on about Amaral & Portugal?
-
I have to agree. It's alright for some to criticise the PJ in hindsight but the evidence on the ground at the time was pretty damning towards the McCanns. The fact that Kate McCann showed a total reluctance to answer police questions when interviewed only served to highten police suspicions imo.
Martin Smith's intervention only served to solidify those suspicions.
It all adds up, in all honesty, hence the reason there's still no sign of any abductor.
-
I have to agree. It's alright for some to criticise the PJ in hindsight but the evidence on the ground at the time was pretty damning towards the McCanns. The fact that Kate McCann showed a total reluctance to answer police questions when interviewed only served to highten police suspicions imo.
This is not true. Kate McCann had already answered most of these question. And Arguidos are not obliged to answer anyway.
Or are you saying that every other Arguido in this case did answer the questions?
And by the way, did Amaral answer the questions about his involvement in Perjury?
-
Play nicely now or points will be added. And there are no prizes to be won.
-
This is not true. Kate McCann had already answered most of these question. And Arguidos are not obliged to answer anyway.
Or are you saying that every other Arguido in this case did answer the questions?
And by the way, did Amaral answer the questions about his involvement in Perjury?
She refused to answer the 49 questions as an arguido Eleanor. That's what counts. Unfortunately for the McCanns they didn't realise that the entire world and his dog would get to read all this for themselves and make up their own opinions.
-
She refused to answer the 49 questions as an arguido Eleanor. That's what counts.
This was her right. And the advice of her Lawyer. Does this not count anymore?
-
This was her right. And the advice of her Lawyer. Does this not count anymore?
So rather than attempting to convince the police she was telling the truth, she thought it was in Madeleine's best interests that she clam up. Strange thing for an innocent mother of an abducted child to do really.
-
The PJ were faced with alerts by the cadaver dog to two locations in 5A, to the McCann's hire car and to Kate McCann's clothes and nowhere else, deduced that there had been a cadaver, and that it was Madeleine's. It's hardly surprising that Amaral's book reached the same conclusion, is it?
That's simply an excuse. If they truly concludded that there could be no other explanation than that the dogs alerted to Madeleine's corpse in all those places then why didn't they press charges?
-
I have to agree. It's alright for some to criticise the PJ in hindsight but the evidence on the ground at the time was pretty damning towards the McCanns. The fact that Kate McCann showed a total reluctance to answer police questions when interviewed only served to highten police suspicions imo.
Martin Smith's intervention only served to solidify those suspicions so one can't really criticise the police on the ground for coming to the conclusions they came to in 2007.
If answering all the questions means the police are less likely to suspect you then where does that leave Gerry?
-
She refused to answer the 49 questions as an arguido Eleanor. That's what counts. Unfortunately for the McCanns they didn't realise that the entire world and his dog would get to read all this for themselves and make up their own opinions.
So by her not answering the questions during her arguido interview do you think that means she's involved in Madeleine's disappearance?
-
So by her not answering the questions during her arguido interview do you think that means she's involved in Madeleine's disappearance?
Well, there's no way to rule it out really is there. If we're honest & objective about the matter. The evidence Madeleine was taken in a criminal act by a stranger is a bit thin on the ground. Bogus confessions aside.
-
This is not true. Kate McCann had already answered most of these question. And Arguidos are not obliged to answer anyway.
Or are you saying that every other Arguido in this case did answer the questions?
And by the way, did Amaral answer the questions about his involvement in Perjury?
When do you imagine Kate McCann answered those questions? In her brief statement on 4th May or in her second statement on 6th September?
-
The PJ were faced with alerts by the cadaver dog to two locations in 5A, to the McCann's hire car and to Kate McCann's clothes and nowhere else, deduced that there had been a cadaver, and that it was Madeleine's. It's hardly surprising that Amaral's book reached the same conclusion, is it?
The dog alerts to all things McCann & there's a sighting of Gerry carrying an inert Maddie away. Of course the police should have suspected an abduction. It's the only logical & plausible explanation apparently.
-
When do you imagine Kate McCann answered those questions? In her brief statement on 4th May or in her second statement on 6th September?
I can't remember, but she did, because some of those 49 question state that she had done so.
-
That's simply an excuse. If they truly concludded that there could be no other explanation than that the dogs alerted to Madeleine's corpse in all those places then why didn't they press charges?
They knew that the dog alerts didn't prove that they alerted to Madeleine, despite the claims by some that they didn't understand.
-
I can't remember, but she did, because some of those 49 question state that she had done so.
So from that you assumed that she'd already answered all of them? A bit of a leap that.
-
She refused to answer the 49 questions as an arguido Eleanor. That's what counts. Unfortunately for the McCanns they didn't realise that the entire world and his dog would get to read all this for themselves and make up their own opinions.
Most of the public know nothing of the 48 questions. Refusal to answer questions can be for several reasons. If Kate has thought those questions would help for the search she would have answered them. She probably felt answering the questions could have hindered the search
-
So from that you assumed that she'd already answered all of them? A bit of a leap that.
Kate didn't have to answer any of them. But The PJ went away and cooked up a few more after she had been made Arguida, when she definitely didn't have to answer.
Did this help? Apparently not. After sixteen years Kate McCann is still at large. What an aggravation this must be. Still no evidence.
-
Most of the public know nothing of the 48 questions. Refusal to answer questions can be for several reasons. If Kate has thought those questions would help for the search she would have answered them. She probably felt answering the questions could have hindered the search
Or maybe she knew there was nothing to search for anyway.
-
They knew that the dog alerts didn't prove that they alerted to Madeleine, despite the claims by some that they didn't understand.
Proven facts.....dogs detected cadaver odour...
according to the PJ the dogs had never been wrong
The ECHR judgement were based on the facts in the files...or more accurately...the lies in the files
-
Proven facts.....dogs detected cadaver odour...
according to the PJ the dogs had never been wrong
The ECHR judgement were based on the facts in the files...or more accurately...the lies in the files
I sincerely hope you can come to terms with it some day.
-
At least Kate didn't get beaten up and then accused of throwing herself down the stairs, which seems to have been a favoured ploy by some members of The PJ when they needed someone to confess. Leonor Cipriano wasn't the only one.
But then The British Ambassador wasn't having that. What a pity, eh what.
-
The PJ were faced with alerts by the cadaver dog to two locations in 5A, to the McCann's hire car and to Kate McCann's clothes and nowhere else, deduced that there had been a cadaver, and that it was Madeleine's. It's hardly surprising that Amaral's book reached the same conclusion, is it?
Just a Sadie has deduced that based on expert opinion from clairvoyents....maddie is still alive
-
At least Kate didn't get beaten up and then accused of throwing herself down the stairs, which seems to have been a favoured ploy by some members of The PJ when they needed someone to confess. Leonor Cipriano wasn't the only one.
But then The British Ambassador wasn't having that. What a pity, eh what.
Yawn
-
I have to agree. It's alright for some to criticise the PJ in hindsight but the evidence on the ground at the time was pretty damning towards the McCanns. The fact that Kate McCann showed a total reluctance to answer police questions when interviewed only served to highten police suspicions imo.
Martin Smith's intervention only served to solidify those suspicions so one can't really criticise the police on the ground for coming to the conclusions they came to in 2007.
Youre in total denial John. The evidence at the time is the same as it is now...no real evidence. Not sure why you want to pretend amaral and his pals were totally incompetent. Atold the court that the main evidence against the mccanns was the dog alerts...he says in the files the dogs had never been wrong....yet harrisn and grime made it clear to themm that the alerts didnt support anything
-
Youre in total denial John. The evidence at the time is the same as it is now...no real evidence. Not sure why you want to pretend amaral and his pals were totally incompetent. Atold the court that the main evidence against the mccanns was the dog alerts...he says in the files the dogs had never been wrong....yet harrisn and grime made it clear to themm that the alerts didnt support anything
Nonsense. The dog alerts support abduction. It's the only logical & plausible explanation for Madeleine’s disappearance.
-
I sincerely hope you can come to terms with it some day.
It hasnt affected me in the slightest and youre daft if you think it would
-
It hasnt affected me in the slightest and youre daft if you think it would
Then why do you keep going on about It?
-
Just a Sadie has deduced that based on expert opinion from clairvoyents....maddie is still alive
I think she mentioned psychics, are they the same thing? Neither of them have been used by the courts as expert witnesses to my knowledge.
-
Then why do you keep going on about It?
I think some people believe they know more about Portuguese and Human Rights laws than those who work in those fields.
-
I think some people believe they know more about Portuguese and Human Rights laws than those who work in those fields.
Some people like winning arguments & being proven right. But , alas, no charges for Brueckner in sight.
(Wonderfulspam poet laureate by royal appointment)
-
It is no longer of any wonder to me for why Leonor Cipriano's Case wasn't taken to The European Court of Human Rights. She wouldn't have stood a hope in hells chance. Despite being beaten senseless to get her to confess. She confessed you see. And that's a fact.
-
Then why do you keep going on about It?
The law interests me...as do a lot of other things. Im just getting into astro astronomy with one of my sons.......initial aim is to get a photograph oh The Orion Nebula...no telescope .....just camera...not as difficult as I expected
-
I have to agree. It's alright for some to criticise the PJ in hindsight but the evidence on the ground at the time was pretty damning towards the McCanns. The fact that Kate McCann showed a total reluctance to answer police questions when interviewed only served to highten police suspicions imo.
Martin Smith's intervention only served to solidify those suspicions so one can't really criticise the police on the ground for coming to the conclusions they came to in 2007.
How can any credence given to a supposedly trained investigator who published in his latest book, "These children were medicated, or given to sleep a medically named Calpol, which is an antihistamine, that put them to sleep. The investigation has to know what is the relationship between taking this medicine and the possible death of the child. And for that we need the clinical history. We need to know if she had a problem." Amaral
Amaral contrived a narrative in 2007 which was nonsensical at the time but there is something Kafkaesque about his self justification of insistence on it's continued promulgation all these years later.- the children had not been medicated with a child's medicine
- Calpol is not an antihistamine
- and even if it was I doubt it would have the killer outcome dictated by Amaral's fantasy.
A 46-year-old member asked:
Is it safe to give antihistamine and paracetamol at the same time?
1 doctor answer • 5 doctors weighed in
Dr. Michael Zacharisenanswered
Allergy and Immunology 35 years experience
Yes: In usual doses, there should be no problem in taking an antihistamine together with paracetamol (acetaminophen). Dr. Pamela Pappas and 3 doctors agree
https://www.healthtap.com/questions/1023022-is-it-safe-to-give-antihistamine-and-paracetamol-at-the-same-time/
It is way past the time that the internet innuendo directed against the McCanns was turned down a notch or two or even abandoned entirely. Particularly when much of it is based on nothing but the tripe circulated by Amaral's self serving prejudices.
-
How can any credence given to a supposedly trained investigator who published in his latest book, "These children were medicated, or given to sleep a medically named Calpol, which is an antihistamine, that put them to sleep. The investigation has to know what is the relationship between taking this medicine and the possible death of the child. And for that we need the clinical history. We need to know if she had a problem." Amaral
Amaral contrived a narrative in 2007 which was nonsensical at the time but there is something Kafkaesque about his self justification of insistence on it's continued promulgation all these years later.- the children had not been medicated with a child's medicine
- Calpol is not an antihistamine
- and even if it was I doubt it would have the killer outcome dictated by Amaral's fantasy.
A 46-year-old member asked:
Is it safe to give antihistamine and paracetamol at the same time?
1 doctor answer • 5 doctors weighed in
Dr. Michael Zacharisenanswered
Allergy and Immunology 35 years experience
Yes: In usual doses, there should be no problem in taking an antihistamine together with paracetamol (acetaminophen). Dr. Pamela Pappas and 3 doctors agree
https://www.healthtap.com/questions/1023022-is-it-safe-to-give-antihistamine-and-paracetamol-at-the-same-time/
It is way past the time that the internet innuendo directed against the McCanns was turned down a notch or two or even abandoned entirely. Particularly when much of it is based on nothing but the tripe circulated by Amaral's self serving prejudices.
Perhaps the McCanns will sue him (again).
-
Perhaps the McCanns will sue him (again).
The McCanns don't need to sue him and if you really are incapable of recognising that I think you have a problem.
-
Perhaps the McCanns will sue him (again).
hes hiding behind the portuguese courts who have protected him....probably through ignorance. He wouldnt dare publish in the UK
-
The law interests me...as do a lot of other things. Im just getting into astro astronomy with one of my sons.......initial aim is to get a photograph oh The Orion Nebula...no telescope .....just camera...not as difficult as I expected
Well, I just want to see Uranus.
-
I think she mentioned psychics, are they the same thing? Neither of them have been used by the courts as expert witnesses to my knowledge.
sceptics think Hyatt is reliable....never been accepted in court as evidence.
The dogs are controversial and been used very few times. Im wondering what will happen if its proved Maddie did not die in the apartmnet. Grime and his dogs will be publicly discredited.....will the Dandre lane case be reopened. how ironic if he walks free due to the dog alerts and grimes testimony being allowed as evidence. that would be aman almmost certainly guilty walking free because of Grime.
-
Well, I just want to see Uranus.
They say the old ones are the best but Im not so sure.... some sceptics think theyve seen uranus....but it was their elbow. They dont know the difference
-
Tthey say the old ones are the best but Im not so sure.... some sceptics think theyve seen uranus....but it was their elbow. They dont know the difference
I've heard that Uranus is a Gas Giant. Parp!
-
I've heard that Uranus is a Gas Giant. Parp!
if its any constellation...Ive far more respect for you than gunit
-
This was her right. And the advice of her Lawyer. Does this not count anymore?
In a formal interview, a lawyer who advises no comment answers in a situation where the suspect is the parent of a missing child, must have good reasons for doing so. It's not rocket science.
-
If answering all the questions means the police are less likely to suspect you then where does that leave Gerry?
He cooperated fully didn't he.
-
So by her not answering the questions during her arguido interview do you think that means she's involved in Madeleine's disappearance?
To the interviewer it certainly created a reason to doubt her.
I don't know how often I have repeated this but the parents of a child who has been supposedly abducted usually cooperate with the police and do so willingly and comprehensively.
Kate McCanns conduct was bizarre
-
In a formal interview, a lawyer who advises no comment answers in a situation where the suspect is the parent of a missing child, must have good reasons for doing so. It's not rocket science.
absolutely agree ....and the possibility of being held on remand for 12 months without trial is an extremely good reason to refuse to answer questions....added to that the co ordinator of the investigation is an arguido of a case with similarities where a confession was beaten out of the suspect
-
In a formal interview, a lawyer who advises no comment answers in a situation where the suspect is the parent of a missing child, must have good reasons for doing so. It's not rocket science.
According to Kate McCann her lawyer thought it was 'the safest option'. I think she later changed to another lawyer (?).
-
Most of the public know nothing of the 48 questions. Refusal to answer questions can be for several reasons. If Kate has thought those questions would help for the search she would have answered them. She probably felt answering the questions could have hindered the search
I disagree. The only reason she refused to answer the questions at the arguido interview was imo simply an act of self preservation.
-
To the interviewer it certainly created a reason to doubt her.
I don't know how often I have repeated this but the parents of a child who has been supposedly abducted usually cooperate with the police and do so willingly and comprehensively.
Kate McCanns conduct was bizarre
I find it totally reasonable and the right thing to do....are you suggesting you think amaral may have been right...i find your post bizarre
-
Kate didn't have to answer any of them. But The PJ went away and cooked up a few more after she had been made Arguida, when she definitely didn't have to answer.
Did this help? Apparently not. After sixteen years Kate McCann is still at large. What an aggravation this must be. Still no evidence.
The evidence has always been there, unfortunately, no-one has been able to find it yet.
-
I find it totally reasonable and the right thing to do....are you suggesting you think amaral may have been right...i find your post bizarre
Love him or hate him, Amaral was simply following the evidence as he saw it. I don't think the passage of nearly 16 years has changed that.
-
I disagree. The only reason she refused to answer the questions at the arguido interview was imo simply an act of self preservation.
you are totally wrong...thats not the only possible reeason.. I see it as keeping the investigation.. going. if kate and gerry had been held on remand then the seaarch for justice for maddie would have been over
-
At least Kate didn't get beaten up and then accused of throwing herself down the stairs, which seems to have been a favoured ploy by some members of The PJ when they needed someone to confess. Leonor Cipriano wasn't the only one.
But then The British Ambassador wasn't having that. What a pity, eh what.
Leonor Cipriano is one of the world's greatest liars.
-
Just a Sadie has deduced that based on expert opinion from clairvoyents....maddie is still alive
Really @)(++(*
-
Love him or hate him, Amaral was simply following the evidence as he saw it. I don't think the passage of nearly 16 years has changed that.
following the evidence as you see it is no excuse for incompetence and not understanding the evidence.None of Amarals thesis was supported by evidence...the archiving report confirmed that
-
Youre in total denial John. The evidence at the time is the same as it is now...no real evidence. Not sure why you want to pretend amaral and his pals were totally incompetent. Atold the court that the main evidence against the mccanns was the dog alerts...he says in the files the dogs had never been wrong....yet harrisn and grime made it clear to themm that the alerts didnt support anything
The dogs I stick with were the tracker dogs. They followed Madeleine's scent out of the apartment and out to the street.
-
Really @)(++(*
you might need to read the post again....im stating what Sadie believes not what I do...and she has just a such right to expresss her opinion as anyone. I actually find a lot of what you say quite daft but wouldnt openly ridicule it
-
Leonor Cipriano is one of the world's greatest liars.
amaral and the rest of his pals would also be up for that award....the ones who claimed Cipriano fell down the stairs
-
The dogs I stick with were the tracker dogs. They followed Madeleine's scent out of the apartment and out to the street.
tracker dogs theoretically should be more relaible.....if they are right then Amaral and Grime are going to look pretty stupid
-
He cooperated fully didn't he.
Yes, so does that mean he’s got nothing to hide?
-
Leonor Cipriano is one of the world's greatest liars.
@)(++(*
yep, her name will go down in history alongside Putin, Boris Johnson and Bill Clinton.
-
Perhaps the McCanns will sue him (again).
That didn't go too well the first time.
-
That didn't go too well the first time.
8(0(*
-
Leonor Cipriano is one of the world's greatest liars.
Snip
"Leonor Cipriano lied about the way they beat her, the identification of the people who beat her, the time and the way she revealed that they had beaten her, in short, lied in all the essential aspects of the statements she made," the judgment stressed.
The decision proved the assaults, although without having determined the identity of the aggressors and determined the conviction of two of the five defendants in the process.
https://www.dn.pt/portugal/leonor-cipriano-conhece-hoje-decisao-do-tribunal-3107417.html
That was indeed as it was portrayed in the topsy-turvy world of the Portuguese judicial system.
Strangely enough although the liar received an additional sentence for lying the fact is that her accusation of torture was proved.
Work that one out if you will.
-
The law interests me...as do a lot of other things. Im just getting into astro astronomy with one of my sons.......initial aim is to get a photograph oh The Orion Nebula...no telescope .....just camera...not as difficult as I expected
We've got a big telescope, Hubbies retirement present, but no North Star visible, unfortrunately, so we can't set it up.
I used to talk the stars with my Dad; they taught us a bit at school. Sadly mostly forgotten.
-
In a formal interview, a lawyer who advises no comment answers in a situation where the suspect is the parent of a missing child, must have good reasons for doing so. It's not rocket science.
Neither is it rocket science when the husband/partner of Leonor Cipriano warns you that you will be fitted up as Leonor was.
And the British ambassader , who knows all about how Michael Cook was fitted up ... and about what happened in the V Bourges case and the Cipriano Case also warns you. Both were fitted up after torture
Did George Brown also warn them, I wonder. He was in touch.
John, if you were Kate, whilst noticing the inadequate search efforts and lies being propogated in the media about you ... and had you been made aware of 4 or 5 warnings such as the above, would you have answered any qestions ?
Knowing that they were not designed to find Madeleine, but just to attempt to trip you up and incrininate you. And all questions from a police officer who was a proven liar in the courts. A trickster.
Had you, as Kate, ended up in prison on false information, then who would have searched for Madeleine? Gerry would have been too busy Looking after the children, earning a living and trying to get you released.
Trying to find Justice and bring Madeleine back. No one else would have been looking.
-
We've got a big telescope, Hubbies retirement present, but no North Star visible, unfortrunately, so we can't set it up.
I used to talk the stars with my Dad; they taught us a bit at school. Sadly mostly forgotten.
The southern sky is best to observe with the naked eye this time of year, providing there's a cloudless sky, no light pollution and an unobstructed view where you live... Orion the Hunter and its M42 cloud nebula (making up his sword), red supergiant Beetlejuice (on his right shoulder) and white dwarf Rigel (on the hem of his skirt). Their difference in colour is noticeable even without a telescope or binoculars. Currently best viewed directly south at around 9:00pm. Sirius, the Dog Star and brightest star is nearby to lower left.
Failing that, you can view this constellation and more on your laptop/computer from the comfort of your couch or bed using Stellarium, an open source planetarium. If you install it now the scene will be bright reflecting the current time, but the sky will gradually darken as night progresses. A bit of a learning curve required but very useful and informative...
https://stellarium.org/ (https://stellarium.org/)
https://www.learnthesky.com/blog/orion-the-hunter-constellation (https://www.learnthesky.com/blog/orion-the-hunter-constellation)
-
Neither is it rocket science when the husband/partner of Leonor Cipriano warns you that you will be fitted up as Leonor was.
And the British ambassader , who knows all about how Michael Cook was fitted up ... and about what happened in the V Bourges case and the Cipriano Case also warns you. Both were fitted up after torture
Did George Brown also warn them, I wonder. He was in touch.
John, if you were Kate, whilst noticing the inadequate search efforts and lies being propogated in the media about you ... and had you been made aware of 4 or 5 warnings such as the above, would you have answered any qestions ?
Knowing that they were not designed to find Madeleine, but just to attempt to trip you up and incrininate you. And all questions from a police officer who was a proven liar in the courts. A trickster.
Had you, as Kate, ended up in prison on false information, then who would have searched for Madeleine? Gerry would have been too busy Looking after the children, earning a living and trying to get you released.
Trying to find Justice and bring Madeleine back. No one else would have been looking.
Kate McCann followed her lawyers advice, but once back in England she decided to use Rogerio Alves to represent her in Portugal in future. This, she said, was because she and her husband were concerned about their lawyer's behaviour and attitude during the arguido interview period. Her husband remained with Carlos Pinto de Abreu, however. Despite Kate's use of the royal 'we' Gerry, it seems, wasn't concerned enough to change his lawyer.
[madeleine page 286]
By 2020, however, Alves was being quoted as representing both of the McCanns.
-
Kate McCann followed her lawyers advice, but once back in England she decided to use Rogerio Alves to represent her in Portugal in future. This, she said, was because she and her husband were concerned about their lawyer's behaviour and attitude during the arguido interview period. Her husband remained with Carlos Pinto de Abreu, however. Despite Kate's use of the royal 'we' Gerry, it seems, wasn't concerned enough to change his lawyer.
[madeleine page 286]
By 2020, however, Alves was being quoted as representing both of the McCanns.
snide
-
snide
Factual. Typically of 'McCann explanations' we're not told why Gerry decided to stay with Carlos de Abreu.
-
Kate McCann followed her lawyers advice, but once back in England she decided to use Rogerio Alves to represent her in Portugal in future. This, she said, was because she and her husband were concerned about their lawyer's behaviour and attitude during the arguido interview period. Her husband remained with Carlos Pinto de Abreu, however. Despite Kate's use of the royal 'we' Gerry, it seems, wasn't concerned enough to change his lawyer.
[madeleine page 286]
By 2020, however, Alves was being quoted as representing both of the McCanns.
more irrelevant junk to add to your already large pile of irrelevant junk. ...and tahts all sceptics have...junk...nothing more..
john brought up the 48 questions junk yesterday.surprised he didnt bring up the jemmied shutters junk...sorry i just cant help laughing
-
more irrelevant junk to add to your already large pile of irrelevant junk. ...and tahts all sceptics have...junk...nothing more..
john brought up the 48 questions junk yesterday.surprised he didnt bring up the jemmied shutters junk...sorry i just cant help laughing
As with the McCann's application to the ECHR, s/he who laughs last is the one to watch imo.
-
Factual. Typically of 'McCann explanations' we're not told why Gerry decided to stay with Carlos de Abreu.
Snide, as are your use of inverted commas above, as is your expectation to have an explanation for absolutely every aspect of McCann decision making. Why don't you produce verbatim the quote that you have decided to pick apart?
-
Snide, as are your use of inverted commas above, as is your expectation to have an explanation for absolutely every aspect of McCann decision making. Why don't you produce verbatim the quote that you have decided to pick apart?
I thought it might have dawned on people by now that I don't care what insults are thrown at me. The fact remains that Kate McCann changed her Portuguese lawyer, but her husband didn't. I don't expect explanations, but if Kate chooses to give them they should be clear and complete imo.
-
Factual. Typically of 'McCann explanations' we're not told why Gerry decided to stay with Carlos de Abreu.
Do you think that you have a right to Know?
-
As with the McCann's application to the ECHR, s/he who laughs last is the one to watch imo.
And who do you think that will be? There is nothing even remotely funny about any of this.
-
I thought it might have dawned on people by now that I don't care what insults are thrown at me. The fact remains that Kate McCann changed her Portuguese lawyer, but her husband didn't. I don't expect explanations, but if Kate chooses to give them they should be clear and complete imo.
More junk.. Why should Kate give you any explanation.. Laughable
-
Do you think that you have a right to Know?
No. I never asked Kate McCann to write a book with her account of the truth, that was her choice.
-
As with the McCann's application to the ECHR, s/he who laughs last is the one to watch imo.
The ECHR case is over.. You raised it again and I've commented.. God knows how Amaral won.. It certainly wasn't because his book was factually based. If you want to continue claiming it was carry on.
The criminal case against the McCanns is over due to SOL.. Its about time you and other sceptics woke up.. But it's more your nightmare is beginning.. 15 yrs of junk from you and others
-
No. I never asked Kate McCann to write a book with her account of the truth, that was her choice.
Oh Dear. And she made a lot of money for the Search for Madeleine Fund.
I don't suppose that you asked Amaral to write a book either. What have you done exactly? Other than to accuse Madeleine's parents with no evidence at all.
-
I thought it might have dawned on people by now that I don't care what insults are thrown at me. The fact remains that Kate McCann changed her Portuguese lawyer, but her husband didn't. I don't expect explanations, but if Kate chooses to give them they should be clear and complete imo.
You must be very sensitive if you perceived my post to be a personal insult. I was commenting on your post. Kate doesn't owe you any explanation, let alone a "clear and complete" one. It's not her fault that you choose to take every single "less than fulsome" explanation of every single action as something worth remarking upon but what else have you got to discuss after all these years? Pickings are slim now I guess...
-
No. I never asked Kate McCann to write a book with her account of the truth, that was her choice.
And it was your choice to read it, cogitate over every word and look for little chinks in it in order to sow your seeds of doubt. Pathetic hobby IMO.
-
And it was your choice to read it, cogitate over every word and look for little chinks in it in order to sow your seeds of doubt. Pathetic hobby IMO.
My observations are, like Amaral's book, based on factual texts. Other's observations are not, they are opinions.
Unless, of course there are reliable texts which demonstrate that Eddie wasn't a cadaver dog, that Amaral wrote his book purely for profit and that Martin Grime wasn't an expert dog trainer and handler.
-
No. I never asked Kate McCann to write a book with her account of the truth, that was her choice.
Kate McCann wrote her book to finance the continuing search for Madeleine. Nobody else was looking and the money had to come from somewhere.
-
Kate McCann wrote her book to finance the continuing search for Madeleine. Nobody else was looking and the money had to come from somewhere.
I know what she said.
-
I know what she said.
Yes, Kate claims she wrote the book to finance the 'search' for Madeleine. Obviously, it's up to the reader whether they choose to believe her or not, because there's absolutely no way to be sure of her true motivation. If we're objective about the matter.
-
My observations are, like Amaral's book, based on factual texts. Other's observations are not, they are opinions.
Unless, of course there are reliable texts which demonstrate that Eddie wasn't a cadaver dog, that Amaral wrote his book purely for profit and that Martin Grime wasn't an expert dog trainer and handler.
Hilarious. Amaral's book is one great big load of opinion based on misunderstanding and "gut feeling". What "factual texts" provide evidence that Madeleine was drugged with Calpol, hidden by her parents and transported in a hire car 23 days later, after being deep frozen?
-
Oh Dear. And she made a lot of money for the Search for Madeleine Fund.
I don't suppose that you asked Amaral to write a book either. What have you done exactly? Other than to accuse Madeleine's parents with no evidence at all.
It's demonstrably false to say there's no evidence at all as there is a mountain of evidence and all it will take is that missing link for it all to fall into place.
-
Yes, Kate claims she wrote the book to finance the 'search' for Madeleine. Obviously, it's up to the reader whether they choose to believe her or not, because there's absolutely no way to be sure of her true motivation. If we're objective about the matter.
Obviously.
-
Where's Mr Gray?
Could he explain to Eleanor what evidence is, because she obviously doesn't understand.
-
Hilarious. Amaral's book is one great big load of opinion based on misunderstanding and "gut feeling". What "factual texts" provide evidence that Madeleine was drugged with Calpol, hidden by her parents and transported in a hire car 23 days later, after being deep frozen?
My there's a lot of hilarity about recently. It was Kate McCann who suggested all three of her children were possibly sedated (three months after the disappearance). Hence Amaral's observations on the subject. Allegedly the initial report from the FSS said DNA very similar to Madeleine's was present in the hire car.
-
My there's a lot of hilarity about recently. It was Kate McCann who suggested all three of her children were possibly sedated (three months after the disappearance). Hence Amaral's observations on the subject. Allegedly the initial report from the FSS said DNA very similar to Madeleine's was present in the hire car.
Where's your cite for the initial report.. I'm convinced the details you suggest re total lie.. And you simply believe it
-
My there's a lot of hilarity about recently. It was Kate McCann who suggested all three of her children were possibly sedated (three months after the disappearance). Hence Amaral's observations on the subject. Allegedly the initial report from the FSS said DNA very similar to Madeleine's was present in the hire car.
If you can't understand that Amaral's book was 99% his opinion and his own biased (mis)interpretation of "factual texts" then I simply can't help you any further...
-
My there's a lot of hilarity about recently. It was Kate McCann who suggested all three of her children were possibly sedated (three months after the disappearance). Hence Amaral's observations on the subject. Allegedly the initial report from the FSS said DNA very similar to Madeleine's was present in the hire car.
I've already looked at all the claims r e the supposed initial report.. Its total BS with nothing to support it
-
Reposting due to overzealous moderation.
It's demonstrably false to say there's no evidence at all against the McCanns.
Martin Smith's sighting of Gerry is evidence.
Yes it is evidence in the case but not evidence against anyone in particular since even Gerry couldn't have been in two places at the same time as the last time I looked it was still contrary to the known laws of physics.
ETA. At least not at this stage.
-
Yes it is evidence in the case but not evidence against anyone in particular since even Gerry couldn't have been in two places at the same time as the last time I looked it was still contrary to the known laws of physics.
ETA. At least not at this stage.
Conclusive evidence or proof? No. It would need to be confirmed in some way. But it's still evidence. Davel understands this, he has previously described it as very weak evidence. It's evidence none the less. If the McCanns had been charged & taken to trial, had Martin Smith been called to testify as a witness, he would have been giving evidence. This shouldn't need explaining every time, but supporters will insist on making the false claim that there is no evidence at all, against the McCanns, when there is. Just nothing sufficient to charge. Much like Christian Brueckner. There is evidence against him. But it will never see the inside of a court room, because it's laughably contestable.
-
Conclusive evidence or proof? No. It would need to be confirmed in some way. But it's still evidence. Davel understands this, he has previously described it as very weak evidence. It's evidence none the less. If the McCanns had been charged & taken to trial, had Martin Smith been called to testify as a witness, he would have been giving evidence. This shouldn't need explaining every time, but supporters will insist on making the false claim that there is no evidence at all, against the McCanns, when there is. Just nothing sufficient to charge. Much like Christian Brueckner. There is evidence against him. But it will never see the inside of a court room, because it's laughably contestable.
We know all the evidence against the McCanns..
W don't know all the evidence against. CB
-
We know all the evidence against the McCanns..
W don't know all the evidence against. CB
We are welcome to hazard a guess as to what possible evidence against CB the police could have. I have a thread devoted to that very question. It doesn't get many participants though.
-
Where's your cite for the initial report.. I'm convinced the details you suggest re total lie.. And you simply believe it
Of these 19 components 15 are present within the result from this item
https://mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/JOHN_LOWE.htm
-
Of these 19 components 15 are present within the result from this item
https://mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/JOHN_LOWE.htm
What does this prove?
-
Of these 19 components 15 are present within the result from this item
https://mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/JOHN_LOWE.htm
Do you mean the report that concluded
“In my opinion, the laboratory results that were attained did not help to clarify whether or not the DNA results obtained within the scope of this case were from Madeleine McCann.”
-
Do you mean the report that concluded
“In my opinion, the laboratory results that were attained did not help to clarify whether or not the DNA results obtained within the scope of this case were from Madeleine McCann.”
Oh Dear Oh Dear Oh Dear.
-
Of these 19 components 15 are present within the result from this item
https://mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/JOHN_LOWE.htm
Are you referring tto this as an initial report
-
Are you referring tto this as an initial report
There is no initial report; I did say alleged. Was there an earlier one without the caveats? I don't know, but the figures are there.
-
Kate McCann followed her lawyers advice, but once back in England she decided to use Rogerio Alves to represent her in Portugal in future. This, she said, was because she and her husband were concerned about their lawyer's behaviour and attitude during the arguido interview period. Her husband remained with Carlos Pinto de Abreu, however. Despite Kate's use of the royal 'we' Gerry, it seems, wasn't concerned enough to change his lawyer.
[madeleine page 286]
By 2020, however, Alves was being quoted as representing both of the McCanns.
As I suspected. Your little precis above is more thsn a little disingenuous, hence why presumably you failed to acknowledge my request for a verbatim quote.
Kate makes it clear in her book theor reasons for hiring Alves: “we rejoined the others an hour later, discussed our strategy, decided upon a plan and worked out who would be doing what. it was agreed Rogério would join the legsl team. He and Carlos knew each other well and were a good combination: Carlos was a details man while Rogério, who was president of the Portuguese Bar, had a high profile in Portugal and a good working relationship with the media. Between them, it was felt, we would have all the angles covered. Rogério would represent me in Portugsl while Carlos continued to act for Gerry”.
Now, what is the big deal with that and where do you imagine Kate McCann is using the “royal we” and not speaking for Gerry as well?
Or were you just taking the opportunity to be snide as I said all along?
-
There is no initial report; I did say alleged. Was there an earlier one without the caveats? I don't know, but the figures are there.
you referred to an alleged initial report ...I merely pointed out there is no evidence...not even the tiniest amount to show it exists. Its a lie started by sceptics...
as for the caveats...according to Sandra F in the netflix doc...Amaral only read the first paragrah and no more. he read the 15 out of 19 markers but not thecontext. before you ask....perlin could not help the case at all...and hes never claimed he could
-
Kate McCann followed her lawyers advice, but once back in England she decided to use Rogerio Alves to represent her in Portugal in future. This, she said, was because she and her husband were concerned about their lawyer's behaviour and attitude during the arguido interview period. Her husband remained with Carlos Pinto de Abreu, however. Despite Kate's use of the royal 'we' Gerry, it seems, wasn't concerned enough to change his lawyer.
[madeleine page 286]
By 2020, however, Alves was being quoted as representing both of the McCanns.
Now https://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=8465.msg699459#msg699459 that we have read the actual words your precis has adulterated somewhat and just to maintain balance, is there any chance you would indicate how many times Amaral's lawyers were changed over the course of the libel trial. Would you care to read into that the significance of those changes.
-
Now https://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=8465.msg699459#msg699459 that we have read the actual words your precis has adulterated somewhat and just to maintain balance, is there any chance you would indicate how many times Amaral's lawyers were changed over the course of the libel trial. Would you care to read into that the significance of those changes.
Did Amaral offer an incomplete explanation of why he changed his lawyers?
-
Did Amaral offer an incomplete explanation of why he changed his lawyers?
LOL...LOL..LOL..Is this a red flag or perhaps an amber flag
-
Did Amaral offer an incomplete explanation of why he changed his lawyers?
Kate didn't - it's all there in the quote I provided.
-
Of these 19 components 15 are present within the result from this item
https://mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/JOHN_LOWE.htm
thats from the report.....there never was any initial report that changed....its sceptic lies
-
Do you mean the report that concluded
“In my opinion, the laboratory results that were attained did not help to clarify whether or not the DNA results obtained within the scope of this case were from Madeleine McCann.”
In other words he didn't know if Madeleine's DNA was there or not.
-
Kate didn't - it's all there in the quote I provided.
So you are saying that Kate didn't write in her book on page 286 (kindle) that "we explained our concerns, which related mainly to Carlos's behaviour and attitude during the arguido interview period"? That explains why she changed lawyers to Rogerio Alves, but not why her husband didn't.
-
So you are saying that Kate didn't write in her book on page 286 (kindle) that "we explained our concerns, which related mainly to Carlos's behaviour and attitude during the arguido interview period"? That explains why she changed lawyers to Rogerio Alves, but not why her husband didn't.
What has this got to do with anything?
-
In other words he didn't know if Madeleine's DNA was there or not.
So how did Amaral come to the conclusion that Madeleine had died in the apartment, her body deep frozen and put in the hire car 23 days later?
-
So you are saying that Kate didn't write in her book on page 286 (kindle) that "we explained our concerns, which related mainly to Carlos's behaviour and attitude during the arguido interview period"? That explains why she changed lawyers to Rogerio Alves, but not why her husband didn't.
Did you not read the following passage that I quoted?
-
What has this got to do with anything?
A very good question.
-
So how did Amaral come to the conclusion that Madeleine had died in the apartment, her body deep frozen and put in the hire car 23 days later?
He was hypothesising just as the McCanns hypothesised that an abductor took her.
-
He was hypothesising just as the McCanns hypothesised that an abductor took her.
Let me take you back to your claim that
"My observations are, like Amaral's book, based on factual texts"
I repeat: what "factual texts" would have led Amaral to believe Madeleine died of a Calpol overdose, was hidden in a freezer and transported 23 days later?
He basically made the whole scenario up based on not one single "factual text". IMO.
-
He was hypothesising just as the McCanns hypothesised that an abductor took her.
He continues hypothesising to the present day in numerous interviews stressing the innocence of convicted child molester and rapist Brueckner.
At least this time round he is incapable of damaging the active criminal investigation into a missing child as he did with the one he he had a say in as coordinator.
-
He continues hypothesising to the present day in numerous interviews stressing the innocence of convicted child molester and rapist Brueckner.
At least this time round he is incapable of damaging the active criminal investigation into a missing child as he did with the one he he had a say in as coordinator.
It doesn't need much damaging, to be fair. I mean, not much happening is there, unless you choose to imagine Brueckner will be charged some day.
-
He continues hypothesising to the present day in numerous interviews stressing the innocence of convicted child molester and rapist Brueckner.
At least this time round he is incapable of damaging the active criminal investigation into a missing child as he did with the one he he had a say in as coordinator.
It's up to the Germans to prove their case, isn't it? When's the trial again? Imo the first investigation into Madeleine McCann's disappearance was damaged by many people, not just one person.
-
It's up to the Germans to prove their case, isn't it? When's the trial again? Imo the first investigation into Madeleine McCann's disappearance was damaged by many people, not just one person.
Are you one of the promotors of the myth that amaral is an office boy? Whatever - such an incompetent anywhere I have worked would have got his marching orders before he could do too much damage.
Oh - wait a minute - he DID get his marching orders! didn't he.
Isn't that why he claimed he had to write a lying book in his defence.
His replacement as office boy did a far better job though. He did his best to curtail the leaks to the Correio da Manhã et al. Brought in experts and concluded that the three arguidos had no case to answer
-
Are you one of the promotors of the myth that amaral is an office boy? Whatever - such an incompetent anywhere I have worked would have got his marching orders before he could do too much damage.
Oh - wait a minute - he DID get his marching orders! didn't he.
Isn't that why he claimed he had to write a lying book in his defence.
His replacement as office boy did a far better job though. He did his best to curtail the leaks to the Correio da Manhã et al. Brought in experts and concluded that the three arguidos had no case to answer
The British authorities and the British press both hampered the first investigation;
The investigation into the disappearance of Madeleine McCann was hampered because British police forces competed against one another, according to the author of a secret Home Office report.https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/sep/01/british-police-competition-harmed-madeleine-mccann-investigation-home-office-report
-
The British authorities and the British press both hampered the first investigation;
The investigation into the disappearance of Madeleine McCann was hampered because British police forces competed against one another, according to the author of a secret Home Office report.https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/sep/01/british-police-competition-harmed-madeleine-mccann-investigation-home-office-report
Is that the report authored by the much maligned Jim Gamble who is fully supportive of the McCanns and is of the opinion Madeleine was abducted? Surely on the basis of both those things his opinion is worthless in your view?
-
Is that the report authored by the much maligned Jim Gamble who is fully supportive of the McCanns and is of the opinion Madeleine was abducted? Surely on the basis of both those things his opinion is worthless in your view?
I don't dismiss information because I don't agree with some of the opinions of the person who provides it. That's very short-sighted imo. In this case he was correct in his assessment.
-
Is that the report authored by the much maligned Jim Gamble who is fully supportive of the McCanns and is of the opinion Madeleine was abducted? Surely on the basis of both those things his opinion is worthless in your view?
Well, he says he is. But there's no way to be sure he really is.
-
I don't dismiss information because I don't agree with some of the opinions of the person who provides it. That's very short-sighted imo. In this case he was correct in his assessment.
so you agree with him that the Portuguese investigation was initially pretty poor
“Gamble explained that the Portuguese police's initial response to the case was chaotic and haphazard. He said this was "alien to the more structured police you would expect here in the UK. There was not a sense of order".
"In the first instance, the parents should be your number one suspects," he told Sky.
"In most cases, in the first few golden hours, as you collect evidence, you can then rule them in or out.
"And that was one of the huge flaws in this – people didn't focus on clearing the ground beneath their feet in those chaotic first few hours that led into the haphazard first few weeks.
"When I carried out the scoping review there was no evidence that some of the critical information and the analysis of which could have led to intelligence and to leads had been followed up."
-
so you agree with him that the Portuguese investigation was initially pretty poor
“Gamble explained that the Portuguese police's initial response to the case was chaotic and haphazard. He said this was "alien to the more structured police you would expect here in the UK. There was not a sense of order".
"In the first instance, the parents should be your number one suspects," he told Sky.
"In most cases, in the first few golden hours, as you collect evidence, you can then rule them in or out.
"And that was one of the huge flaws in this – people didn't focus on clearing the ground beneath their feet in those chaotic first few hours that led into the haphazard first few weeks.
"When I carried out the scoping review there was no evidence that some of the critical information and the analysis of which could have led to intelligence and to leads had been followed up."
So now you're going to question me about everything he ever said? He said the UK authorities hampered the investigation and I agree with him.
-
So now you're going to question me about everything he ever said? He said the UK authorities hampered the investigation and I agree with him.
It wasn’t a question. You said he was correct in his assertion wrt to the way the investigation was handled from the start. You can’t claim to know he was correct about the British police but incorrect about the Portuguese police, not without giving evidence to support your beliefs.
-
It wasn’t a question. You said he was correct in his assertion wrt to the way the investigation was handled from the start. You can’t claim to know he was correct about the British police but incorrect about the Portuguese police, not without giving evidence to support your beliefs.
I made a statement saying I agreed with Gamble about the mistakes made by the UK authorities. It doesn't mean I have to respond to questions about any of his other opinions and I won't.
-
I made a statement saying I agreed with Gamble about the mistakes made by the UK authorities. It doesn't mean I have to respond to questions about any of his other opinions and I won't.
You're sounding very touchy.. Probably because you are starting to realise you've been wrong for 15 yrs
-
I made a statement saying I agreed with Gamble about the mistakes made by the UK authorities. It doesn't mean I have to respond to questions about any of his other opinions and I won't.
you are too funny! Once again, I wasn’t asking a question, merely observing. I love how you cherry pick to suit your arguments, very skillful ;-)
-
you are too funny! Once again, I wasn’t asking a question, merely observing. I love how you cherry pick to suit your arguments, very skillful ;-)
A claim was made that Amaral hampered the investigation. I responded with Gamble's claim that the UK authorities did so too. That's all.
-
A claim was made that Amaral hampered the investigation. I responded with Gamble's claim that the UK authorities did so too. That's all.
Whataboutery. The UK authorities may have done so unwittingly by being over eager to help, but that doesn’t let Amaral et al off the hook for their incompetence and lack of eagerness to follow up the invesigative opportunities as highlighted by Jim Gamble.
-
Whataboutery. The UK authorities may have done so unwittingly by being over eager to help, but that doesn’t let Amaral et al off the hook for their incompetence and lack of eagerness to follow up the invesigative opportunities as highlighted by Jim Gamble.
The investigative opportunities which OG have spent years exploring with no results?
-
The investigative opportunities which OG have spent years exploring with no results?
DM rape case solved. CB convicted
3 other rape cases and two child sex offences potentially solved.... And a suspect considered 100 % guilty in the MM case... All because the McCanns pushed to continue the investigation and as as a direct result of SY action.. You can't argue with the facts but you'll probably try.
All because of a public appeal on German TV organised by SY.
4 of these of these cases where the victims were let down by the PJ....
That's a very good result
-
DM rape case solved. CB convicted
3 other rape cases and two child sex offences potentially solved.... And a suspect considered 100 % guilty in the MM case... All because the McCanns pushed to continue the investigation and as as a direct result of SY action.. You can't argue with the facts but you'll probably try.
All because of a public appeal on German TV organised by SY.
4 of these of these cases where the victims were let down by the PJ....
That's a very good result
I think you're getting over optimistic. At the moment no trials are upcoming for this offender.
-
I think you're getting over optimistic. At the moment no trials are upcoming for this offender.
I think youre in denial
Hes been found guilty of one rape ...thats guilty...and the other 5 charges have been made.
-
I think you're getting over optimistic. At the moment no trials are upcoming for this offender.
Certainly no trials or charges that have any connection whatsoever to Madeleine's disappearance. Unless you want to imagine a link between Hazel B & Maddie. Only, there isn't any.
-
I thought he'd been charged with those other five cases.
-
The investigative opportunities which OG have spent years exploring with no results?
So are you criticising Gamble now for identifying the wrong investigative opportunities? Do you think investigative opportunities should have remained uninvestigated unless they were pointing at the parents?
-
The investigative opportunities which OG have spent years exploring with no results?
Do you understand that Grange cannot investigate the parents.. It has no jurisdiction.. Something Colin Sutton didn't seem to understand
-
Do you understand that Grange cannot investigate the parents.. It has no jurisdiction.. Something Colin Sutton didn't seem to understand
Does Germany have jurisdiction to investigate CB Mr legal expert?
-
I thought he'd been charged with those other five cases.
He definitely has been charged on five counts for sexual crimes against women and children all of which were committed in Portugal between December 28, 2000, and June 11, 2017.
The investigating officers who collected the evidence which resulted in charges being made, are also involved in the process of collecting evidence in Madeleine McCann's case.
My understanding is that any delay in proceedings might well be as a result of Brueckner's legal representatives presenting procedural objections re the trial venue on their client's behalf.
-
He definitely has been charged on five counts for sexual crimes against women and children all of which were committed in Portugal between December 28, 2000, and June 11, 2017.
The investigating officers who collected the evidence which resulted in charges being made, are also involved in the process of collecting evidence in Madeleine McCann's case.
My understanding is that any delay in proceedings might well be as a result of Brueckner's legal representatives presenting procedural objections re the trial venue on their client's behalf.
Thank You. But no one is in any hurry at the moment.
-
Thank You. But no one is in any hurry at the moment.
No need to rush things. He presents no immediate threat to society.
-
No need to rush things. He presents no immediate threat to society.
Yes, the murder charges can be put on hold for now. Madeleine's family will just have to sit tight & wait a bit longer for justice. Wolters has more important charges against CB to attend to at the moment. None involving child abduction though.
-
Does Germany have jurisdiction to investigate CB Mr legal expert?
Yes they do... Do you not understand why... Looks like I am the legal expert
-
Yes they do... Do you not understand why... Looks like I am the legal expert
Given your less than successful track record I think you'll need evidence showing that your opinions about the UK and German police powers are correct.
-
Given your less than successful track record I think you'll need evidence showing that your opinions about the UK and German police powers are correct.
Keep on showing your lack of knowledge.
Its governed by Extra Territorial jurisdiction. Countries can only prosecute certain crimes committed by its citizens. Abroad. These include murder and sexual abuse... The McCanns were accused of neither in Portugal.
Colin Sutton called for the mccanns to be questioned under caution.. He didn't understand it either. I'd say my knowledge is pretty impressive
-
Given your less than successful track record I think you'll need evidence showing that your opinions about the UK and German police powers are correct.
My understanding of ECHR law iis pretty impressive too
I said all along, probably at least 2 years before the verdict that Portugal would fail be cause Amarals claim were not factually based.. In fact they are based on lies in the files
The ECHR simply accepted the lies and didn't question them
-
My understanding of ECHR law iis pretty impressive too
I said all along, probably at least 2 years before the verdict that Portugal would fail be cause Amarals claim were not factually based.. In fact they are based on lies in the files
The ECHR simply accepted the lies and didn't question them
Neither court was required to discover what was true, just that the information quoted by Amaral was taken from the investigation files.
-
Neither court was required to discover what was true, just that the information quoted by Amaral was taken from the investigation files.
Exactly. So how did the court arrive at the decision that Amaral did not libel the McCanns? Libel being the publication of untrue and defamatory allegations about another person. Please explain.
-
Exactly. So how did the court arrive at the decision that Amaral did not libel the McCanns? Libel being the publication of untrue and defamatory allegations about another person. Please explain.
Because the theory was based on evidence? Albeit scant, as you have conceded.
-
Neither court was required to discover what was true, just that the information quoted by Amaral was taken from the investigation files.
I agree...but what was in the files was pure lies...you have to agree with that. So the ECHRs decision was based on lies...as you have now agreed...
-
I agree...but what was in the files was pure lies...you have to agree with that. So the ECHRs decision was based on lies...as you have now agreed...
If the proven facts had said that the cadaver dog alerted to all things McCann, as oppose to saying the alerts confirmed cadaver odour, I really don't believe the outcome would have been any different. I mean, what were the investigative team supposed to have deduced from cadaver alerts combined with dubious claims of open windows, slamming doors & a sighting of Gerry? Abduction I suppose, because it's the only logical & plausible explanation apparently.
-
If the proven facts had said that the cadaver dog alerted to all things McCann, as oppose to saying the alerts confirmed cadaver odour, I really don't believe the outcome would have been any different. I mean, what were the investigative team supposed to have deduced from cadaver alerts combined with dubious claims of open windows, slamming doors & a sighting of Gerry? Abduction I suppose, because it's the only logical & plausible explanation apparently.
What you think is of no importance.. My post is fact not opinion
-
What you think is of no importance.. My post is fact not opinion
Good for you. Have a biscuit, & remember to get back to me when Brueckner is charged.
-
What you think is of no importance.. My post is fact not opinion
Your post is opinion of what you consider to be fact.
-
Your post is opinion of what you consider to be fact.
It's a proven fact the dog alerted to things McCann & that there's still no sign of the abductor after 16 years, coincidently.
-
Your post is opinion of what you consider to be fact.
Point out which part of my post is opinion
-
Point out which part of my post is opinion
Your opinion that my opinion isn't important. That's just your opinion. I believe my opinion is very important. Indeed it's often important enough to some that they feel compelled to reply.
-
I agree...but what was in the files was pure lies...you have to agree with that. So the ECHRs decision was based on lies...as you have now agreed...
What makes you think that the files could only contain truths? I expect most police investigation files contain lies, misunderstandings, evasions and opinions. That wasn't the issue. The issue was whether Amaral based his opinions on the information in the files and he did.
-
What makes you think that the files could only contain truths? I expect most police investigation files contain lies, misunderstandings, evasions and opinions. That wasn't the issue. The issue was whether Amaral based his opinions on the information in the files and he did.
And according to the courts that isn't a problem, so why is it a problem for anyone else to do so on this forum? The ECHR ruling has made it clear that anyone covered by the ECHR can say whatever they want about the McCanns even if it is grossly defamatory, or hurts them or their family.
-
And according to the courts that isn't a problem, so why is it a problem for anyone else to do so on this forum? The ECHR ruling has made it clear that anyone covered by the ECHR can say whatever they want about the McCanns even if it is grossly defamatory, or hurts them or their family.
Only if it's based on evidence. Which Amaral's theory was, as you agreed earlier.
-
And according to the courts that isn't a problem, so why is it a problem for anyone else to do so on this forum? The ECHR ruling has made it clear that anyone covered by the ECHR can say whatever they want about the McCanns even if it is grossly defamatory, or hurts them or their family.
I suggest you ask John to explain. His forum, his rules.
-
Your opinion that my opinion isn't important. That's just your opinion. I believe my opinion is very important. Indeed it's often important enough to some that they feel compelled to reply.
I don't feel compelled to reply at all.. I'm being courteous
-
What makes you think that the files could only contain truths? I expect most police investigation files contain lies, misunderstandings, evasions and opinions. That wasn't the issue. The issue was whether Amaral based his opinions on the information in the files and he did.
But, but the information in the files was based on Amaral's misinterpretation of the dog alerts. The alerts don't prove cadaver odour, as the PJ mistakenly believed. No inference at all can be made from the alerts, you see. They'd need supporting evidence. But there's still no sign of a living Maddie after all these years either, so maybe Amaral was actually right & she died in the apartment after all. I can't see any way to rule that out, unless Madeleine or the abductor are found. Wolters needs to pull his finger out & prove abduction, or else the poor McCanns might have to suffer the effects of lingering public suspicion. However, they actually failed to demonstrate the thesis in Amaral's book damaged them in any measurable way.
-
I suggest you ask John to explain. His forum, his rules.
I already did, remember?
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=12497.msg699734#msg699734
You jumped in and answered for him, and here we are.
-
Re Mr Gray's question on what a proven fact means in PT law.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=post;quote=700607;topic=12504.45
I haven't read the ECtHR ruling, so I'm not sure what the argument is actually about.
-
Re Mr Gray's question on what a proven fact means in PT law.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=post;quote=700607;topic=12504.45
I haven't read the ECtHR ruling, so I'm not sure what the argument is actually about.
Its academic now but I like academia.
The judgement said amarals book had sufficient factual basis and therefore ruled in Portugals favour.
The General provided me with alink to an interesting paper which said the ECHR would accept the facts as judged by the initial trial which stated in the proven facts that the cadaver dog alerted to cadaver odour. If that was true then it would be quite reasonable for the PJ to be convinced taht Maddie died in the apartmnet......as abduction would be ruled out.
This means Amarals afctual basis wasnt factual.... I finf it all very starnge.
unfortunately your link doesnt work
-
Re Mr Gray's question on what a proven fact means in PT law.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=post;quote=700607;topic=12504.45
I haven't read the ECtHR ruling, so I'm not sure what the argument is actually about.
I dont know of any other legal system where this is the case.......the question is did the ECHR judges understand Portugals odd understanding of proven facts....then what did the McCanns lawyers do in not filing an objection to it. Again...if it was true.. I dont see anything but the mccanns guilt
-
Its academic now but I like academia.
The judgement said amarals book had sufficient factual basis and therefore ruled in Portugals favour.
The General provided me with alink to an interesting paper which said the ECHR would accept the facts as judged by the initial trial which stated in the proven facts that the cadaver dog alerted to cadaver odour. If that was true then it would be quite reasonable for the PJ to be convinced taht Maddie died in the apartmnet......as abduction would be ruled out.
This means Amarals afctual basis wasnt factual.... I finf it all very starnge.
unfortunately your link doesnt work
Any chance of a link to the paper in question? I still haven't read the judgement, sorry. However, skimming through the previous 2-3 pages, my understanding is similar to what G-Unit posted on the previous couple of pages.
-
*&(+(+
Any chance of a link to the paper in question? I still haven't read the judgement, sorry. However, skimming through the previous 2-3 pages, my understanding is similar to what G-Unit posted on the previous couple of pages.
The link has expired but was quite clear that the court would take the evidence as accepted by the court in question..so the dogs alerting to cadaver was accepted as fact and amaral theory accepted as having sufficient factual basis. Therefore it's not libellous to say CB is guilty based on the German police files
-
*&(+(+
The link has expired but was quite clear that the court would take the evidence as accepted by the court in question..so the dogs alerting to cadaver was accepted as fact and amaral theory accepted as having sufficient factual basis. Therefore it's not libellous to say CB is guilty based on the German police files
I that's a very simplistic and probably incorrect assumption.
-
I that's a very simplistic and probably incorrect assumption.
When did you become the expert in a position to criticise me lol... If you want to give your opinion that's fine... But make it clear it is your opinion.. And imo
... You dont have a clue what you are talking about
-
I that's a very simplistic and probably incorrect assumption.
If you are going to give your opinion on my post you should make sure you make it clear it's your opinion..
Imo..you haven't got a clue
-
This is from the official court summary in the Cipriano case
E.VII. There was also no insurmountable contradiction in the motivation resulting from the fact that the traces collected through the projectina technique were not understood to belong to the deceased CC and the understanding that the traces of human blood collected in the house where the facts took place were hers, or between this conclusion and that, due to the cleaning carried out by defendant BB, it was not possible to determine the DNA of said blood.
This is because it was through many other pieces of evidence that it was concluded that the blood that was collected in the house was the minor's blood, in no way connecting these hematic traces with those collected using the projectin technique (which causes other body fluids to appear).
Even though the alleged contradiction could only exist if there were, in turn, laboratory elements that ruled out the possibility that the blood belonged to the victim, which did not happen.
There are therefore no contradictory facts given as 8()(((@#
so blood collected in the fridge...even though it was not DNA tested..was accepted a s proven to belong to Joanna as there were no contradictory facts......what an absolute insult to evidence and justice
-
This is from the official court summary in the Cipriano case
E.VII. There was also no insurmountable contradiction in the motivation resulting from the fact that the traces collected through the projectina technique were not understood to belong to the deceased CC and the understanding that the traces of human blood collected in the house where the facts took place were hers, or between this conclusion and that, due to the cleaning carried out by defendant BB, it was not possible to determine the DNA of said blood.
This is because it was through many other pieces of evidence that it was concluded that the blood that was collected in the house was the minor's blood, in no way connecting these hematic traces with those collected using the projectin technique (which causes other body fluids to appear).
Even though the alleged contradiction could only exist if there were, in turn, laboratory elements that ruled out the possibility that the blood belonged to the victim, which did not happen.
There are therefore no contradictory facts given as 8()(((@#
so blood collected in the fridge...even though it was not DNA tested..was accepted a s proven to belong to Joanna as there were no contradictory facts......what an absolute insult to evidence and justice
Now we know why Leonor Cipriano didn't appeal to The ECHR.
-
Now we know why Leonor Cipriano didn't appeal to The ECHR.
She never appealed because she was guilty as hell by her own mouth.
-
She never appealed because she was guilty as hell by her own mouth.
What do you think of the concept of judging that the blood in the fridge was Joana's without bothering to conduct a DNA test?
-
What do you think of the concept of judging that the blood in the fridge was Joana's without bothering to conduct a DNA test?
Well, it couldn't have been meat, could it. What a ridiculous suggestion that would have been.
-
What do you think of the concept of judging that the blood in the fridge was Joana's without bothering to conduct a DNA test?
Rather bizarre
-
She never appealed because she was guilty as hell by her own mouth.
Never mind the beating, eh what. And Amaral getting done for lying in Court. Just minor details.
-
Now we know why Leonor Cipriano didn't appeal to The ECHR.
IMO, her last lawyer made a total hash in advising her at the Supreme Court.
-
Rather bizarre
But despite this, the complete absence of forensic evidence of a bloody murder and dismemberment and despite the fact that she was tortured and police investigating the case were found to have lied you have no doubts whatsoever about the safety of the conviction, which I personally find a bit baffling.
-
But despite this, the complete absence of forensic evidence of a bloody murder and dismemberment and despite the fact that she was tortured and police investigating the case were found to have lied you have no doubts whatsoever about the safety of the conviction, which I personally find a bit baffling.
Two independent confessions is enough in this case. Leonora Cipriano might not have killed the girl but she was complicit in the attempted coverup after the fact. She deserved all she got in the end as did her murdering brother.
-
Two independent confessions is enough in this case. Leonora Cipriano might not have killed the girl but she was complicit in the attempted coverup after the fact. She deserved all she got in the end as did her murdering brother.
Two independent confessions is certainly not enough in a properly tried case if the defendants then go on to plead not guilty.
-
But despite this, the complete absence of forensic evidence of a bloody murder and dismemberment and despite the fact that she was tortured and police investigating the case were found to have lied you have no doubts whatsoever about the safety of the conviction, which I personally find a bit baffling.
I have yet to wade through the ECtHR judgement in the McCann case.
IMO, the Cipriano case should have been thrown out of court in the first instance. To be fair, the PT Supreme Court (exceptionally) invited her to give them her account. Any "normal" lawyer would have advised her to do just that. IMO, the lawyer may well have encouraged her to "confess" to being complicit in selling / giving her away as she'd already served the time that that would have incurred.
IMO, if she'd had a different lawyer and had just kept to her own recollection of events, the SC should have cancelled her imprisonment. If they hadn't, she would have had every right to take her case to the ECtHR. IMO.
As it stands, I still find it a strange coincidence that Brückner's other abode was less than 10 km from where little Joana disappeared. However, I haven't been able to establish if he was there at the time.
-
Two independent confessions is enough in this case. Leonora Cipriano might not have killed the girl but she was complicit in the attempted coverup after the fact. She deserved all she got in the end as did her murdering brother.
As I understand and there has never been a reliable cite to dispute it, is that there was only one confession...the one the portuguese court ruled was beaten out of her by the PJ....which Amaral was convicted of trying to cover up.
the only claim of another was by the lawyers of the thugs who beat her during their trial.
Any justice system which relies on torturing its suspects into confession has no right to call itself a justice system...more an injustice system
-
I have yet to wade through the ECtHR judgement in the McCann case.
IMO, the Cipriano case should have been thrown out of court in the first instance. To be fair, the PT Supreme Court (exceptionally) invited her to give them her account. Any "normal" lawyer would have advised her to do just that. IMO, the lawyer may well have encouraged her to "confess" to being complicit in selling / giving her away as she'd already served the time that that would have incurred.
IMO, if she'd had a different lawyer and had just kept to her own recollection of events, the SC should have cancelled her imprisonment. If they hadn't, she would have had every right to take her case to the ECtHR. IMO.
As it stands, I still find it a strange coincidence that Brückner's other abode was less than 10 km from where little Joana disappeared. However, I haven't been able to establish if he was there at the time.
Nothing to wade through. I posted several years ago the decision would be based on whether amarals book had a factual basis....and thats how the decision was reached. Unfortunately for the McCannns the court accepted the facts supplied by the portuguese courts that the cadaver dogs alert was confirmed as cadaver odour....of course it never was
-
Nothing to wade through. I posted several years ago the decision would be based on whether amarals book had a factual basis....and thats how the decision was reached. Unfortunately for the McCannns the court accepted the facts supplied by the portuguese courts that the cadaver dogs alert was confirmed as cadaver odour....of course it never was
It's really quite simple;
That question would have been explored and answered by a criminal court if the McCanns were ever charged. The question the civil court was exploring was whether Amaral used facts from the files to base his hypothesis on. He did; the files were his factual basis.
-
It's really quite simple;
That question would have been explored and answered by a criminal court if the McCanns were ever charged. The question the civil court was exploring was whether Amaral used facts from the files to base his hypothesis on. He did; the files were his factual basis.
I think it's about time you were stopped posting your opinion as fact.
That's your opinion..you have no experience or expertise in the area.
It's the same in the cipriano criminal trial....no factual basis for the blood being accepted as a proven fact.
The ECHR guidance talks about veracity.
The book is based on lies..now that's a fact
-
It's really quite simple;
That question would have been explored and answered by a criminal court if the McCanns were ever charged. The question the civil court was exploring was whether Amaral used facts from the files to base his hypothesis on. He did; the files were his factual basis.
Seeing as it's simple..why is it considered a proven fact that the dog alerted to cadaver when the pj files report the exact opposite.
-
It's really quite simple;
That question would have been explored and answered by a criminal court if the McCanns were ever charged. The question the civil court was exploring was whether Amaral used facts from the files to base his hypothesis on. He did; the files were his factual basis.
This is exactly what I have said.the ECHR see that Amarals book is based on facts in the files..proven facts...but they aren't proven and they aren't facts
-
This is exactly what I have said.the ECHR see that Amarals book is based on facts in the files..proven facts...but they aren't proven and they aren't facts
You still don't get it, do you? The question to be answered was whether Amaral's book used the information in the files to form his hypothesis. He did.
-
You still don't get it, do you? The question to be answered was whether Amaral's book used the information in the files to form his hypothesis. He did.
Golly Gosh. Any old hypothesis will do. Make it up as you go along.
I am past caring about the Judicial System in Portugal. The McCanns will never be charged and nothing that you say will alter that.
We all get it, believe me. And only too well. The Portuguese Justice System is corrupt.
-
You still don't get it, do you? The question to be answered was whether Amaral's book used the information in the files to form his hypothesis. He did.
not sure what makes you think you are an expert in ECHR or Portuguese law....the question is why did the PJ files contaim lies....you are avoiding the most important question....I get it...you certainly dont
-
not sure what makes you think you are an expert in ECHR or Portuguese law....the question is why did the PJ files contaim lies....you are avoiding the most important question....I get it...you certainly dont
I'm no expert in anything. Just like you I've been on a learning curve and we reached different conclusions. You are still trying to convince yourself and anyone who will listen that you were right and the Portuguese courts and the ECHR were wrong. Your arguments are irrelevant now though, except to you.
-
I'm no expert in anything. Just like you I've been on a learning curve and we reached different conclusions. You are still trying to convince yourself and anyone who will listen that you were right and the Portuguese courts and the ECHR were wrong. Your arguments are irrelevant now though, except to you.
I am beginning to wonder why we don't all just give up and let you and your nasty ideas take over. It won't actually make any difference. And I am fast becoming bored witless.
-
I am beginning to wonder why we don't all just give up and let you and your nasty ideas take over. It won't actually make any difference. And I am fast becoming bored witless.
What do you mean by nasty ideas? What are these nasty ideas that G-Unit has?
-
I am beginning to wonder why we don't all just give up and let you and your nasty ideas take over. It won't actually make any difference. And I am fast becoming bored witless.
Have you anything relevant to say? I must admit your attempts to convince people that I'm some kind of nasty troll are, imo, laughable and very very boring.
-
What do you mean by nasty ideas? What are these nasty ideas that G-Unit has?
Ideas which are difficult to refute because they rest on a factual basis perhaps. @)(++(*
-
I'm no expert in anything. Just like you I've been on a learning curve and we reached different conclusions. You are still trying to convince yourself and anyone who will listen that you were right and the Portuguese courts and the ECHR were wrong. Your arguments are irrelevant now though, except to you.
I'm interested in how the verdict was arrived at you obviously haven't followed my posts.
The ECHR could reach no other conclusion.
The question you haven't and can't answer is why the Portuguese regard facts as proven that are neither facts nor proven.
All my reasoning on how the decision would be reached was absolutely spot on
-
I'm interested in how the verdict was arrived at you obviously haven't followed my posts.
The ECHR could reach no other conclusion.
The question you haven't and can't answer is why the Portuguese regard facts as proven that are neither facts nor proven.
All my reasoning on how the decision would be reached was absolutely spot on
Imo you are deluded. Amaral said that the cadaver dog Eddie alerted to cadaver odour in various places connected with her parents. That's what it said in the files. Therefore his claim that he used facts from the files is correct, it is proved.
-
Imo you are deluded. Amaral said that the cadaver dog Eddie alerted to cadaver odour in various places connected with her parents. That's what it said in the files. Therefore his claim that he used facts from the files is correct, it is proved.
You are the deluded one...so it's pointless wasting anymore time with you
Why did the Portuguese regard lies as proven facts...same in the cipriano case
-
Are Portugal the only country in the world that treat lies as proven facts
-
You are the deluded one...so it's pointless wasting anymore time with you
Why did the Portuguese regard lies as proven facts...same in the cipriano case
So I'm deluded but you're the one who doesn't understand the issues and predicted the wrong outcome?
-
So I'm deluded but you're the one who doesn't understand the issues and predicted the wrong outcome?
Yes you are absolutely deluded. You pretend to understand everything but can't answer why portugal regards lies as proven facts in both the McCann and cipriano trials
-
Yes you are absolutely deluded. You pretend to understand everything but can't answer why portugal regards lies as proven facts in both the McCann and cipriano trials
I don't need to. You're the one who labelled them 'lies' and who thinks you know all the answers.
-
I don't need to. You're the one who labelled them 'lies' and who thinks you know all the answers.
Actually I think there is no doubt they are lies.
In the first instance the illiterate and poor Portuguese nationals were powerless against them and Joana's fate remains a mystery.
In the second instance the accused were able to challenge the lies - avoid incarceration as a result - and take steps to address the mystery of Madeleine's disappearance with the hope of finding what happened to her.
-
I don't need to. You're the one who labelled them 'lies' and who thinks you know all the answers.
There's no confirmation of cadaver odour
,...that was explained to the PJ
..so to claim there is..is a lie. So Amarals thesis is based on a lie. See if you can point out where I'm wrong..you can't..I'm right
-
Can anyone prove the dog alerted to something other than cadaver odour? Unconfirmed doesn't mean untrue.
-
Can anyone prove the dog alerted to something other than cadaver odour? Unconfirmed doesn't mean untrue.
That really is a pathetic response.,...
To claim the alert is confirmed is a lie...simple. it may or may not be an alert to cadaver...but it is not confirmed,..
It's a lie to claim it is
-
That really is a pathetic response.,...
To claim the alert is confirmed is a lie...simple. it may or may not be an alert to cadaver...but it is not confirmed,..
It's a lie to claim it is
Who claimed the alert was confirmed?
-
Who claimed the alert was confirmed?
You really are deluded if you ask that question
-
Who claimed the alert was confirmed?
Have you read the interim report?
How about this - is this a factual statement?
“There is a coincidence between the markings of cadaver odour and blood [by the two dogs], according to the (partial) Laboratory Report that has been annexed to the files.
The said marking occurred behind the living room sofa (cadaver odour/blood/DNA), which unarguably proves that said piece of furniture was pushed back by someone, after the death of Madeleine McCann was confirmed”.
Unarguably proves?
Well that’s that then isn’t it? it’s a fact that the sofa was moved after Madeleine died in the apartment. No debate.
Jesus H.
-
According to gunits way of thing my belief in CBs guilt is based on facts
-
According to gunits way of thing my belief I VBs guilt is based on facts
It's a fact that Wolters says he has concrete evidence. His alerts are unconfirmed however. But it shouldn't be much longer now.
-
Who claimed that the dog alerts were confirmed?
-
Who claimed that the dog alerts were confirmed?
Have you read the interim report?
How about this - is this a factual statement?
“There is a coincidence between the markings of cadaver odour and blood [by the two dogs], according to the (partial) Laboratory Report that has been annexed to the files.
The said marking occurred behind the living room sofa (cadaver odour/blood/DNA), which unarguably proves that said piece of furniture was pushed back by someone, after the death of Madeleine McCann was confirmed”.
Unarguably proves?
Well that’s that then isn’t it? it’s a fact that the sofa was moved after Madeleine died in the apartment. No debate.
Jesus H.
-
As I don't have the courage to wade through over 300 pages of comments, I don't know whether the judgment has already been published here. Apologies if so.
It can be downlowded here:
https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/fre?i=003-7438419-10185805
A briefer summary (information notes):
https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=002-13798
-
I'm interested in how the verdict was arrived at you obviously haven't followed my posts.
The ECHR could reach no other conclusion.
The question you haven't and can't answer is why the Portuguese regard facts as proven that are neither facts nor proven.
All my reasoning on how the decision would be reached was absolutely spot on
I think the issue over "proven facts" is that it was not a criminal trial but a civil one. When the judge wouldn't allow Gerry to show his documentation or whatever it was to show that cadaver dogs can be unreliable, it was because all that was being assessed is whether what Amaral asserted re the dogs was effectively in the case files (as opposed to him having invented it off his own bat). The issue wasn't whether Eddie had correctly reacted to cadaver odour or not. If it had been a criminal trial, presumably Gerry's counter-evidence could have been presented and perhaps then the conclusion might have been that cadaver odour wasn't a proven fact.
-
I think the issue over "proven facts" is that it was not a criminal trial but a civil one. When the judge wouldn't allow Gerry to show his documentation or whatever it was to show that cadaver dogs can be unreliable, it was because all that was being assessed is whether what Amaral asserted re the dogs was effectively in the case files (as opposed to him having invented it off his own bat). The issue wasn't whether Eddie had correctly reacted to cadaver odour or not. If it had been a criminal trial, presumably Gerry's counter-evidence could have been presented and perhaps then the conclusion might have been that cadaver odour wasn't a proven fact.
Yes, that's my understanding too - the proven fact is that the Interim report claimed Madeleine died in the apartment, that the sofa was moved and her blood was found behind it. The fact that these claims were all completely unverified and unsupported by any evidence was not apparently of any interest to the ECHR. Strange but true!
-
I think the issue over "proven facts" is that it was not a criminal trial but a civil one. When the judge wouldn't allow Gerry to show his documentation or whatever it was to show that cadaver dogs can be unreliable, it was because all that was being assessed is whether what Amaral asserted re the dogs was effectively in the case files (as opposed to him having invented it off his own bat). The issue wasn't whether Eddie had correctly reacted to cadaver odour or not. If it had been a criminal trial, presumably Gerry's counter-evidence could have been presented and perhaps then the conclusion might have been that cadaver odour wasn't a proven fact.
I agree completely Carana. The point was simply to decide if Amaral's thesis was based on information in the files, not whether the information was true or false. The judge of the first instant was quite clear;
Judge – To decide that there are already forensic experts. We are not here to prove if the contents of the book are truthful or not. Here we are only trying to establish if the freedom of expression of the defendants has affected the rights of the claimants. This court cannot be a substitute of the criminal investigation.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=4746.0
-
Yes, that's my understanding too - the proven fact is that the Interim report claimed Madeleine died in the apartment, that the sofa was moved and her blood was found behind it. The fact that these claims were all completely unverified and unsupported by any evidence was not apparently of any interest to the ECHR. Strange but true!
AFAIK, the ECtHR was never going to examine the nitty-gritty of the case, just whether the "national authorities" had violated or ignored applicable rights, or ignored EU case precedence in their rulings. I presume that they base their rulings on the arguments presented to them.
Seemingly, the PJ doesn't appear to be a national authority. Amaral's book had come out 3 days after the public prosecutor's ruling.
-
ECtHR: "The Court considered that, 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, which had led to their being placed under investigation in the course of the criminal investigation (the prosecutor’s office decided to take no further action in July 2008) and had led to intense media attention and much controversy. The information had thus been brought to the public’s attention in some detail even before the investigation file was made available to the media and the book in question was published. It followed that the national authorities had not failed in their positive obligation to protect the applicants’ right to respect for their private life."
And a lot of that negative speculation was fuelled by PJ leaks (some true, some misleading and others wildly inaccurate), and an overly cosy "scratch my back and I'll scratch yours" PT tabloid / PJ relationship.
-
Yes, that's my understanding too - the proven fact is that the Interim report claimed Madeleine died in the apartment, that the sofa was moved and her blood was found behind it. The fact that these claims were all completely unverified and unsupported by any evidence was not apparently of any interest to the ECHR. Strange but true!
My impression was (and still is) that that "interim report" read as if it was invented and written on the back of a beer mat late at night in a Portimão bar. Whether that was the case or not, it was nonetheless an official document as far as the civil case was concerned.
-
I agree completely Carana. The point was simply to decide if Amaral's thesis was based on information in the files, not whether the information was true or false. The judge of the first instant was quite clear;
Judge – To decide that there are already forensic experts. We are not here to prove if the contents of the book are truthful or not. Here we are only trying to establish if the freedom of expression of the defendants has affected the rights of the claimants. This court cannot be a substitute of the criminal investigation.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=4746.0
It's not often that we agree. ;)
-
It's not often that we agree. ;)
We have different opinions, but a similar approach in our understanding of text imo.
-
I agree completely Carana. The point was simply to decide if Amaral's thesis was based on information in the files, not whether the information was true or false. The judge of the first instant was quite clear;
Judge – To decide that there are already forensic experts. We are not here to prove if the contents of the book are truthful or not. Here we are only trying to establish if the freedom of expression of the defendants has affected the rights of the claimants. This court cannot be a substitute of the criminal investigation.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=4746.0
A point, though, is that people in some quarters still choose to harp on that the fact that the judges ruled that cadaver odour was therefore a "proven fact", merrily disregarding the fact that all it meant was that reports to that effect were in the files, which was all the judge in the civil case needed to ascertain.
-
Have you read the interim report?
How about this - is this a factual statement?
“There is a coincidence between the markings of cadaver odour and blood [by the two dogs], according to the (partial) Laboratory Report that has been annexed to the files.
The said marking occurred behind the living room sofa (cadaver odour/blood/DNA), which unarguably proves that said piece of furniture was pushed back by someone, after the death of Madeleine McCann was confirmed”.
Unarguably proves?
Well that’s that then isn’t it? it’s a fact that the sofa was moved after Madeleine died in the apartment. No debate.
Jesus H.
If a criminal case had been brought to court, it would have been shot down. Even the GNR stated that they had moved furniture to make sure that she wasn't simply hiding somewhere. That, too, is in the files.
-
If a criminal case had been brought to court, it would have been shot down. Even the GNR stated that they had moved furniture to make sure that she wasn't simply hiding somewhere. That, too, is in the files.
It's an unjust world IMO where an ex-cop can legally base his damning, accusatory book on an unsubstantiated reading of the evidence which results in the parents of a missing child being falsely accused of all sorts of heinous acts.
-
It's an unjust world IMO where an ex-cop can legally base his damning, accusatory book on an unsubstantiated reading of the evidence which results in the parents of a missing child being falsely accused of all sorts of heinous acts.
I watched (most of) the Leveson enquiry at the time. Re the McCann episode, all (?) the journos stated that the leaks came from the PT police. Although not specified, few could logically have come from the GNR as they weren't privy to the investigation files, AFAIK, and therefore I presume that "police" meant the PJ.
The McCanns could never have nailed specific individuals in the PJ as the source of the leaks... how? The PT tabloid / PJ blitz against them that started as soon as they became arguidos was relentless. By the time Amaral's book came out, he was a "private citizen", but the vast quantity of leaks meant that the arguably most damaging ones about the McCanns had started before his publication. Nothing to do with me, mate.
-
I think the issue over "proven facts" is that it was not a criminal trial but a civil one. When the judge wouldn't allow Gerry to show his documentation or whatever it was to show that cadaver dogs can be unreliable, it was because all that was being assessed is whether what Amaral asserted re the dogs was effectively in the case files (as opposed to him having invented it off his own bat). The issue wasn't whether Eddie had correctly reacted to cadaver odour or not. If it had been a criminal trial, presumably Gerry's counter-evidence could have been presented and perhaps then the conclusion might have been that cadaver odour wasn't a proven fact.
The point im making is how do the confirmed dog alerts appear in the proven facts in the first place....just as the proven facts in the cipriano case included Jaonnas blood being confirmed in the fridge when it wasnt....and this WAS a criminal trial.
Why does the portuguese court accept things that are not proven....nor facts to be listed in court documents as proven facts. Do you know any other country with such bizarre standards.
-
The point im making is how do the confirmed dog alerts appear in the proven facts in the first place....just as the proven facts in the cipriano case included Jaonnas blood being confirmed in the fridge when it wasnt....and this WAS a criminal trial.
Why does the portuguese court accept things that are not proven....nor facts to be listed in court documents as proven facts. Do you know any other country with such bizarre standards.
The Cipriano case was a CRIMINAL one.... sadly with no real defense. A state-appointed (?) defense lawyer who had (wrongly) assumed that the case would be thrown out and either because there was no money or because there was little time, no countering evidence had been gathered to disprove the so-called facts. The whole thing was a shambles, IMO. Public opinion had been already whipped into a frenzy and - in some video clips - appeared ready to lynch the Ciprianos. Three guesses whom by.
The McCann case was a CIVIL trial. Totally different.
-
The point im making is how do the confirmed dog alerts appear in the proven facts in the first place....just as the proven facts in the cipriano case included Jaonnas blood being confirmed in the fridge when it wasnt....and this WAS a criminal trial.
Why does the portuguese court accept things that are not proven....nor facts to be listed in court documents as proven facts. Do you know any other country with such bizarre standards.
At the time things were marginally better than during the dark ages of Salazar. Portugal probably thought that it was doing okay. Sadly, Salazar still lurked in The Judicial System. Amaeal being one such.
-
The Cipriano case was a CRIMINAL one.... sadly with no real defense. A state-appointed (?) defense lawyer who had (wrongly) assumed that the case would be thrown out and either because there was no money or because there was little time, no countering evidence had been gathered to disprove the so-called facts. The whole thing was a shambles, IMO. Public opinion had been already whipped into a frenzy and - in some video clips - appeared ready to lynch the Ciprianos. Three guesses whom by.
The McCann case was a CIVIL trial. Totally different.
Am I wrong in thinking that Leonor Cipriano's Lawyer was a friend of Amaral?
-
Am I wrong in thinking that Leonor Cipriano's Lawyer was a friend of Amaral?
From memory, there were several. One eventually offered him a place as a trainee, but I don't recall that panning out. One (same?) appeared shocked at being sidelined by the court allowing João's "confession" tape as "evidence".
-
From memory, there were several. One eventually offered him a place as a trainee, but I don't recall that panning out. One (same?) appeared shocked at being sidelined by the court allowing João's "confession" tape as "evidence".
What about the one who got caught taking drugs into a prison? He said they were planted on him and everyone believed him, of course.
-
What about the one who got caught taking drugs into a prison? He said they were planted on him and everyone believed him, of course.
I never quite understood that story.
-
A point, though, is that people in some quarters still choose to harp on that the fact that the judges ruled that cadaver odour was therefore a "proven fact", merrily disregarding the fact that all it meant was that reports to that effect were in the files, which was all the judge in the civil case needed to ascertain.
Thats your opinion and youve not provided anything to support it. The ECHR ruling says the book had a factual basis. In the guidelines about how the court decides on the balance between articles 8 and 10 the ECHR says it looks at the veracity of the claim. Are you aware that the ECHR do not question the facts,....they would assume the proven facts are in fact proven. in truth Amaarls claims are based on lies...not facts.
-
Thats your opinion and youve not provided anything to support it. The ECHR ruling says the book had a factual basis. In the guidelines about how the court decides on the balance between articles 8 and 10 the ECHR says it looks at the veracity of the claim. Are you aware that the ECHR do not question the facts,....they would assume the proven facts are in fact proven. in truth Amaarls claims are based on lies...not facts.
In your opinion.
-
In your opinion.
it isnt opinion its fact. to state the dog alerted to cadaver odour ...and confirm it as a fact...as the files do..is a blatant lie
-
If a criminal case had been brought to court, it would have been shot down. Even the GNR stated that they had moved furniture to make sure that she wasn't simply hiding somewhere. That, too, is in the files.
On what basis was it ever included in the files as a proven fact. do you realise that the ECHR remit is not to question the facts in the files. can you name another country that acts in this bizarre way
-
If a criminal case had been brought to court, it would have been shot down. Even the GNR stated that they had moved furniture to make sure that she wasn't simply hiding somewhere. That, too, is in the files.
you say it would have been shot down...why would it be shot own...because it isnt true...because its a lie
-
A point, though, is that people in some quarters still choose to harp on that the fact that the judges ruled that cadaver odour was therefore a "proven fact", merrily disregarding the fact that all it meant was that reports to that effect were in the files, which was all the judge in the civil case needed to ascertain.
Could you explain why those particular points in the files were picked out and treated as proven facts....and staements of the dog experts ignored
-
The Cipriano case was a CRIMINAL one.... sadly with no real defense. A state-appointed (?) defense lawyer who had (wrongly) assumed that the case would be thrown out and either because there was no money or because there was little time, no countering evidence had been gathered to disprove the so-called facts. The whole thing was a shambles, IMO. Public opinion had been already whipped into a frenzy and - in some video clips - appeared ready to lynch the Ciprianos. Three guesses whom by.
The McCann case was a CIVIL trial. Totally different.
No need for caps I understand the difference. as you claim to understand .....could you tell us when and how these proven facts are arrived at..and if any other country has asimilar system
-
it isnt opinion its fact. to state the dog alerted to cadaver odour ...and confirm it as a fact...as the files do..is a blatant lie
It is a fact that a dog trained to alert to cadaver odour alerted to places and things associated to the McCanns and nowhere else.
-
It is a fact that a dog trained to alert to cadaver odour alerted to places and things associated to the McCanns and nowhere else.
It's a proven fact that Harrison said Grime explained to the PJ that no inferences could be drawn from the alerts.
Interesting to see the highly regarded expert diver in the NB case thrown off the experts list....
-
In your opinion.
In your opinion are Amaral’s claims based on facts? Please list the facts upon which his claims are based.
-
It is a fact that a dog trained to alert to cadaver odour alerted to places and things associated to the McCanns and nowhere else.
it is not a proven fact that the dog alerted to cadaver odour...so why do the PJ say it is.....and when and by whom w as it proven. Amarals thesis is based on lies...that is very easy to prove
-
In your opinion are Amaral’s claims based on facts? Please list the facts upon which his claims are based.
The judge of the first instance said;
80. The facts related to the criminal investigation of Madeleine McCann's disappearance that the defendant Goncalo Amaral refers in the book, in an interview with the newspaper Correio da Manha and in the documentary are mostly facts that occurred and are documented in this investigation (clauses 27 and 28 of the instruction basis) .
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=6307.0
-
It is a fact that a dog trained to alert to cadaver odour alerted to places and things associated to the McCanns and nowhere else.
Not to forget that Eddie was first trained to alert to blood, quite some time before Grime tried to change his purpose.
-
I honestly believed that someone associated with The ECHR, even if only a researcher would have looked at the entire Case and informed The Judges.
I still don't understand why this didn't happen.
-
Not to forget that Eddie was first trained to alert to blood, quite some time before Grime tried to change his purpose.
Is that not a myth?
-
The judge of the first instance said;
80. The facts related to the criminal investigation of Madeleine McCann's disappearance that the defendant Goncalo Amaral refers in the book, in an interview with the newspaper Correio da Manha and in the documentary are mostly facts that occurred and are documented in this investigation (clauses 27 and 28 of the instruction basis) .
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=6307.0
I was asking for YOUR opinion, not the PT judiciary (who seem quite happy that facts don’t need to be true or proven).
-
Is that not a myth?
No. How else do you explain the alert to the sex tissue in HdlG? Was it actually used on a cadaver?
-
Is that not a myth?
No. Definitely Not. Eddie was originally trained as a Victim Recovery Dog. That's what VRD means. Victims of accidents are found by the smell of Blood. And they ain't all dead.
So you can put that one to bed.
-
The judge of the first instance said;
80. The facts related to the criminal investigation of Madeleine McCann's disappearance that the defendant Goncalo Amaral refers in the book, in an interview with the newspaper Correio da Manha and in the documentary are mostly facts that occurred and are documented in this investigation (clauses 27 and 28 of the instruction basis) .
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=6307.0
We know that..but who drew up the proven facts..and on what basis were they considered proven...
-
Unfortunately, what is considered legally permissible is not always what one may consider morally right.
-
Unfortunately, what is considered legally permissible is not always what one may consider morally right.
For all the replies no one seems to be able to answer the question.
On what basis was the ref to alerts put in proven facts when real facts ..no inference can be drawn from the alerts ...was left out
-
I'm not interested what a self confessed troll on a forum thinks..just to make it clear
-
I'm not interested what a self confessed troll on a forum thinks..just to make it clear
Well, I've no interest in discussing the verdict of the ECHR either. I've accepted their decision & moved on.
I understand the verdict still grates some people however. I can take comfort in that.
-
Unfortunately, what is considered legally permissible is not always what one may consider morally right.
But it was just like having dinner in your back garden...
-
No. Definitely Not. Eddie was originally trained as a Victim Recovery Dog. That's what VRD means. Victims of accidents are found by the smell of Blood. And they ain't all dead.
So you can put that one to bed.
Victim recovery dogs are trained to search for and detect human remains
https://www.northamptonchron.co.uk/news/crime/northamptonshire-polices-first-ever-victim-recovery-dog-joins-the-team-3214359
-
For all the replies no one seems to be able to answer the question.
On what basis was the ref to alerts put in proven facts when real facts ..no inference can be drawn from the alerts ...was left out
Was that one of the points raised by the McCanns or not?
-
Victim recovery dogs are trained to search for and detect human remains
https://www.northamptonchron.co.uk/news/crime/northamptonshire-polices-first-ever-victim-recovery-dog-joins-the-team-3214359
This begs the question as to why Martin Grime felt the need to Enhance Eddie. Have you any opinions on that?
-
Was that one of the points raised by the McCanns or not?
Gerry raised it in the Court of the first instance
-
Victim recovery dogs are trained to search for and detect human remains
https://www.northamptonchron.co.uk/news/crime/northamptonshire-polices-first-ever-victim-recovery-dog-joins-the-team-3214359
We all know that....refer to what Harrison said re the alerts in Luz
It seems Eddie was detecting much in the way of human remains...one body in 5 years
so Grime and Harrison came up with another role..remnant scent...it was only to supply intelligence but Grime decided it could be used as evidence..all from the white paper
-
Gerry raised it in the Court of the first instance
In the context of a civil trial.
-
Victim recovery dogs are trained to search for and detect human remains
https://www.northamptonchron.co.uk/news/crime/northamptonshire-polices-first-ever-victim-recovery-dog-joins-the-team-3214359
Yes, but AFAIK the concept of "human remains" (or even animal remains within a dog's training parameters) doesn't necessarily mean that someone died.
For some reason, every thread ends up arguing about the dogs.
-
Yes, but AFAIK the concept of "human remains" (or even animal remains within a dog's training parameters) doesn't necessarily mean that someone died.
For some reason, every thread ends up arguing about the dogs.
My post was in answer to a claim that Eddie was trained as a VRD, meaning he was trained to detect just blood. That's not how VRD's are trained.
-
My post was in answer to a claim that Eddie was trained as a VRD, meaning he was trained to detect just blood. That's not how VRD's are trained.
they are trained to detect blood and other bodily fluids though, which can come from a living or dead person. Look what happened in Jersey.
-
My post was in answer to a claim that Eddie was trained as a VRD, meaning he was trained to detect just blood. That's not how VRD's are trained.
That's not my understanding either.
-
In the context of a civil trial.
You asked a question...i gave the answer. In cases of balance between 8 and 10 the ECHR sees the veracity of the claims as important. Amarals claims have little veracity. ......unless the ECHR simply accepted the proven facts...as proven facts...which they obviosly did...but they wer elittle more tahn lies
-
they are trained to detect blood and other bodily fluids though, which can come from a living or dead person. Look what happened in Jersey.
Yes, thinking of the recent earthquakes in terms of my understanding: a Search & Recovery dog would alert if it detects a living human. A VRD might also alert to the same area, if, for example, a concrete block had chopped off the finger of a victim who was still alive. Both alerts could be correct.
In the absence of any tangible evidence, the dog may or may not be correct and could be correct but that the scent has nothing to do with an alleged crime.
-
How has this descended into yet another dog thread? On the other hand, they all seem to...
-
How has this descended into yet another dog thread? On the other hand, they all seem to...
Quite simply because according to Almeida who wrote the interim report...the dog alerts which according to the experts had no evidential value and from which no inference should be drawn.. were the main evidence against the McCanns
-
How has this descended into yet another dog thread? On the other hand, they all seem to...
I think the dogs are an essential part of the mythology which took us on the direct path to the ECHR. I don't think the journey was as a result of malice, more of complete misunderstanding of their role.
They do get affected by the work they do just as they can be fooled by human intervention. This is why in the absence of their indications leading to a positive result, their work can only ever be considered as intel.
In the McCann case - there are people who just will not accept that. Which is why as long as vitriol continues to be poured on the McCanns - "the dogs" will always have their day.
Snip
Dr. Cynthia Otto, the director of the Penn Vet Working Dog Center in Philadelphia who looked after the dogs at ground zero, said the that, for the most part, the dogs’ injuries were only “very minor” — cuts and scrapes on their paw pads, legs and bellies, mainly, as well as fatigue and heat exhaustion
The bigger challenge, she said, was the frustration of searching for hours and not finding anyone. When the dogs began to get discouraged and lose their motivation to search, handlers had to stage “mock finds” so the dogs could feel successful.
“When they train, they don’t search for hours without finding anybody,” she said in a recent phone conversation.
“You need to remind the dogs every so often that they do get to win.”
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/08/30/arts/design/the-dogs-of-9-11.html
-
Quite simply because according to Almeida who wrote the interim report...the dog alerts which according to the experts had no evidential value and from which no inference should be drawn.. were the main evidence against the McCanns
But the ECtHR case had nothing to do with assessing what the dogs may - or may not - have alerted to.
-
But the ECtHR case had nothing to do with assessing what the dogs may - or may not - have alerted to.
I've already pointed that out..the ECHR just look at the facts in the court case.,.as the alerts were confirmed...that's what they based their judgement on
For the umpteenth time ..I'm interested in how the confirmed alerts became proven facts..when they aren't...no one has come close to an answer
-
I think the dogs are an essential part of the mythology which took us on the direct path to the ECHR. I don't think the journey was as a result of malice, more of complete misunderstanding of their role.
They do get affected by the work they do just as they can be fooled by human intervention. This is why in the absence of their indications leading to a positive result, their work can only ever be considered as intel.
In the McCann case - there are people who just will not accept that. Which is why as long as vitriol continues to be poured on the McCanns - "the dogs" will always have their day.
Snip
Dr. Cynthia Otto, the director of the Penn Vet Working Dog Center in Philadelphia who looked after the dogs at ground zero, said the that, for the most part, the dogs’ injuries were only “very minor” — cuts and scrapes on their paw pads, legs and bellies, mainly, as well as fatigue and heat exhaustion
The bigger challenge, she said, was the frustration of searching for hours and not finding anyone. When the dogs began to get discouraged and lose their motivation to search, handlers had to stage “mock finds” so the dogs could feel successful.
“When they train, they don’t search for hours without finding anybody,” she said in a recent phone conversation.
“You need to remind the dogs every so often that they do get to win.”
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/08/30/arts/design/the-dogs-of-9-11.html
Dr. Cynthia was, of course, discussing search and rescue dogs, which detect living rather than dead people.
-
Dr. Cynthia was, of course, discussing search and rescue dogs, which detect living rather than dead people.
Can these two types of dogs tell the difference? Absolutely brilliant if they can.
-
I've already pointed that out..the ECHR just look at the facts in the court case.,.as the alerts were confirmed...that's what they based their judgement on
For the umpteenth time ..I'm interested in how the confirmed alerts became proven facts..when they aren't...no one has come close to an answer
It's been answered, but you seem unable to understand.
-
It's been answered, but you seem unable to understand.
It hasnt....you need to learn the diffference between a fact and your opinion .... thats a good placet to start. if you think it has then point me to the answer...you wont be able to because it has not been answerred
-
Can these two types of dogs tell the difference? Absolutely brilliant if they can.
People's sense of smell is vastly inferior to that of a dog's. It takes days before people can detect the scent of a dead body, but once detected it's not going to be mistaken for the scent of a living person. Just like humans, dogs can detect the difference but much quicker after death than a human can.
-
The judge of the first instance said;
80. The facts related to the criminal investigation of Madeleine McCann's disappearance that the defendant Goncalo Amaral refers in the book, in an interview with the newspaper Correio da Manha and in the documentary are mostly facts that occurred and are documented in this investigation (clauses 27 and 28 of the instruction basis) .
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=6307.0
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=6307.0
The above is an insecure webpage, Gunit
There is no * s * on the * http *, and the padlock sign is scored through with an orange line
Also the information was supplied by Ann Guedes who is related to Amaral. She should surely have declared a * Conflict of Interest * at the time, but didn't
-
People's sense of smell is vastly inferior to that of a dog's. It takes days before people can detect the scent of a dead body, but once detected it's not going to be mistaken for the scent of a living person. Just like humans, dogs can detect the difference but much quicker after death than a human can.
Again. That doesn't answer my question. I shall put it another way.
Do they individually ignore a type of victim that they aren't supposed to be looking for and how do they tell the difference? Especially the live person has inadvertently wet themselves?
-
To claim Eddie alerte to cadaver odour is not a fact and it is therefore a lie to refer to it as a fact. There are further lies in the interim report. The dogs do not have a 100% record,..they are not the only dogs of their type in the world. Both these claims were made in the Interim report by Almeida and are untrue and therefore lies.
Amarals book does not have a factual basis..it is based on lies.
The PJ seem to have too much belief in Grime.
The diver in the Nicola Bulley case reminds me of Grime. Highly regarded as an expert in his field and now his reputation is in tatters.
I think the same will happen to Grime.
Grimes book is based on lies ..not facts..but it is not the job of the ECHR to check the facts.
I do wonder why the McCann's lawyers allowed this to happen.
So who decided and when .....to claim alerts to cadaver were a proven fact. That questione has not been answered and to claim it has is total junk
-
Again. That doesn't answer my question. I shall put it another way.
Do they individually ignore a type of victim that they aren't supposed to be looking for and how do they tell the difference? Especially the live person has inadvertently wet themselves?
Are you suggesting that a dog trained to detect dead bodies will alert to elderly incontinant people? How fanciful.....
-
To claim Eddie alerte to cadaver odour is not a fact and it is therefore a lie to refer to it as a fact. There are further lies in the interim report. The dogs do not have a 100% record,..they are not the only dogs of their type in the world. Both these claims were made in the Interim report by Almeida and are untrue and therefore lies.
Amarals book does not have a factual basis..it is based on lies.
The PJ seem to have too much belief in Grime.
The diver in the Nicola Bulley case reminds me of Grime. Highly regarded as an expert in his field and now his reputation is in tatters.
I think the same will happen to Grime.
Grimes book is based on lies ..not facts..but it is not the job of the ECHR to check the facts.
I do wonder why the McCann's lawyers allowed this to happen.
So who decided and when .....to claim alerts to cadaver were a proven fact. That questione has not been answered and to claim it has is total junk
Yes, we know what your opinion is, thank you. I didn't know Grime wrote a book?
-
Are you suggesting that a dog trained to detect dead bodies will alert to elderly incontinant people? How fanciful.....
Urine is a bodily fluid which even Cadaver Dogs alert to, along with semen which Grime admitted to being within normal parameters. Why do you not know this?
-
Are you suggesting that a dog trained to detect dead bodies will alert to elderly incontinant people? How fanciful.....
Has the dog ever been tested re stale urine
-
Urine is a bodily fluid which even Cadaver Dogs alert to, along with semen which Grime admitted to being within normal parameters. Why do you not know this?
I've seen all the fanciful theories thank you, but I've no interest in revisiting them. All I know is that there's a distinctive scent given off by a dead body which cadaver dogs can and do detect. I don't believe they will alert to the individual components of that scent.
-
Yes, we know what your opinion is, thank you. I didn't know Grime wrote a book?
My posts are not opinion..you're the one continually posting your opinion as fact
The basis of Amarals thesis is based on lies..not facts...that is totally factual..100% truem . Your total refusal to accept that is absurd..again fact not opinion
-
I've seen all the fanciful theories thank you, but I've no interest in revisiting them. All I know is that there's a distinctive scent given off by a dead body which cadaver dogs can and do detect. I don't believe they will alert to the individual components of that scent.
What was Eddie alerting to on the tissue at HdlG then? Was it used on a cadaver do you think?
-
What was Eddie alerting to on the tissue at HdlG then? Was it used on a cadaver do you think?
That was when Grime said that Eddie alerting to body fluids was normal.
-
That was when Grime said that Eddie alerting to body fluids was normal.
I watched a programme recently showing a UK police cadaver dog handler in operation and his dog alerted to a dead chick that had fallen from its nest. He said that was normal behaviour for the dog. Not only that but the handler rewarded the dog for its find. I think it’s fair to say none of it is an exact science.
-
And, in case anyone wonders, I heard an American Dog Handler say In Court that Cadaver Dogs do alert to urine.
-
My posts are not opinion..you're the one continually posting your opinion as fact
The basis of Amarals thesis is based on lies..not facts...that is totally factual..100% truem . Your total refusal to accept that is absurd..again fact not opinion
A court of law is the place to sort truth from lies; that's what criminal trials are for. In this case a trial didn't happen, so we don't know the answers. Your opinions are immaterial.
-
A court of law is the place to sort truth from lies; that's what criminal trials are for. In this case a trial didn't happen, so we don't know the answers. Your opinions are immaterial.
Why was there No Trial I have to wonder.
-
A court of law is the place to sort truth from lies; that's what criminal trials are for. In this case a trial didn't happen, so we don't know the answers. Your opinions are immaterial.
There is just so much iinnacuracy and contradiction in your post its impossible to take you seriously.
What was the portuguese court if not a court of law
Every trial Ive seen involving libel establishes the facts...thats what governs the outcome
What court of law in this case established taht the alerts to cadaver were were proven facts
based on those three points its fair to refer to your post as utter junk. if you disagree please show which point Ive made is untrue....you wont be able to
-
Why was there No Trial I have to wonder.
there was a trial...a civil trial. ..where the facts are established. The ECHR does not question the established facts...they do not act as a fourth court. I think the McCanns were badly let down by their legal team
-
Why was there No Trial I have to wonder.
Insufficient evidence to arrest the McCanns.
-
Insufficient evidence to arrest the McCanns.
In reality there was no evidence against the mccanns....thats fact not opinion...if you disagree tell us what evidence you think there was
-
In reality there was no evidence against the mccanns....thats fact not opinion...if you disagree tell us what evidence you think there was
Apparently changing your statement (despite it conferring no actual advantage to oneself) is evidence of guilt unless it’s done by Murat, then it’s absolutely fine.
-
Apparently changing your statement (despite it conferring no actual advantage to oneself) is evidence of guilt unless it’s done by Murat, then it’s absolutely fine.
the witness statements are not admissible....next
-
the witness statements are not admissible....next
Right, so no evidence of abduction.
-
Right, so no evidence of abduction.
You are wrong as usual.
Jane Tanners sighting is evidence ... that is the simplest one ... but there are several others, which i have gone through ad finitum.
-
You are wrong as usual.
Jane Tanners sighting is evidence ... that is the simplest one ... but there are several others, which i have gone through ad finitum.
Jane Tanner saw a man carrying a child, that's all.
-
Jane Tanner saw a man carrying a child, that's all.
You missed out where she saw it and on what day and time.
-
You missed out where she saw it and on what day and time.
And the direction in which he was walking.
-
You missed out where she saw it and on what day and time.
Irrelevant. Jane Tanners witness statement is inadmissible as evidence.
-
Has the dog ever been tested re stale urine
I have numerous reasons for having wondered about that as well for well over a decade... The response may depend on whether the dog is in work mode or not.
But we're still back to the dogs as opposed to the basis of the ECtHR ruling. The ECtHR can't go back to examining a potential butterfly effect. Not their job.
-
I was actually interested in the ECtHR thread in terms of legal arguments, but it's gone so off course. Again. Never mind.
-
I was actually interested in the ECtHR thread in terms of legal arguments, but it's gone so off course. Again. Never mind.
ive summed it up many times but no one sinterested.
The deciision of both the SC and the ECHR was how to balance the conficting rights of article 8 vs article 10...article 8 with respect to the right to reputation.
One of the important factors and in this case the deciding factor was the veracity of the claim. It seems quite fair in as much that you can say what you like about someone as long as it has a reasonable basis in fact .
the proven facts...which of course were never proven or facts was the basis of the SC judgement. They gave amaral the legitimite right to his freedom of expression.....they gave his thesis veracity.
Unfortunately for the McCannns the ECHR do not question the facts from the initial trial so ruled that Amarals thesis was based on true facts....they werent....and has sufficient factual basis for article 10 to prevail.
The McCanns lawyers should have insisted on questioning the facts but initially it was not really a libel trial ...it was whether the book had caused damage to the mCCann family.......i could go into more detail but its complex
-
ive summed it up many times but no one sinterested.
The deciision of both the SC and the ECHR was how to balance the conficting rights of article 8 vs article 10...article 8 with respect to the right to reputation.
One of the important factors and in this case the deciding factor was the veracity of the claim. It seems quite fair in as much that you can say what you like about someone as long as it has a reasonable basis in fact .
the proven facts...which of course were never proven or facts was the basis of the SC judgement. They gave amaral the legitimite right to his freedom of expression.....they gave his thesis veracity.
Unfortunately for the McCannns the ECHR do not question the facts from the initial trial so ruled that Amarals thesis was based on true facts....they werent....and has sufficient factual basis for article 10 to prevail.
The McCanns lawyers should have insisted on questioning the facts but initially it was not really a libel trial ...it was whether the book had caused damage to the mCCann family.......i could go into more detail but its complex
How wise you are; after the event, of course. It's a shame this problem you think you've unearthed didn't occur to you when you were forecasting a McCann win.
-
How wise you are; after the event, of course. It's a shame this problem you think you've unearthed didn't occur to you when you were forecasting a McCann win.
It really does annoy you I've got such a good understanding of the principles I involve doesn't it...you can't add anything to it just jealous sniping lol...there's more I can say about it..al the fault of the McCanns lawyers.
Let's see if anyone can critique my analysis..you've certainly failed
-
It really does annoy you I've got such a good understanding of the principles I involve doesn't it...you can't add anything to it just jealous sniping lol...there's more I can say about it..al the fault of the McCanns lawyers.
Let's see if anyone can critique my analysis..you've certainly failed
Your utter refusal to believe that you don't understand the terminology used by the Portuguese courts prevents you from progressing, unfortunately.
-
Your utter refusal to believe that you don't understand the terminology used by the Portuguese courts prevents you from progressing, unfortunately.
Your post makes no sense whatsoever....what terminology do you think I dont understand,,...and you do. I guarantee that if you try to answer you will make a complete and utter fool of yourself.
you have staed your post a s fact...not opinion ./..so you need to have a convincing explanation to justify your claim
-
Your post makes no sense whatsoever....what terminology do you think I dont understand,,...and you do. I guarantee that if you try to answer you will make a complete and utter fool of yourself.
you have staed your post a s fact...not opinion ./..so you need to have a convincing explanation to justify your claim
What you don't understand is that 'facts appearing in the PJ files' and 'true facts appearing in the PJ files' were two different things. Had the truth of the information in the files had any relevance to this case the first instance judge wouldn't have dismissed Gerry McCann's attempts to get her involved in that discussion. Ignoring that, you are still trying to convince people that it is relevant. It's not going to work though.
-
And the direction in which he was walking.
And the pyjamas with the unusual detail at the ankle
And the urgency with which he was walking
And the fact that the little girl was being carried in an awkward and very tiring way. Which no experienced father would use. Tannerman was never a father, by which I mean that he had never hung around to help bring up any of his possible offspring. Tannerman didn't know how to carry a young child.
Had it been Dr Totman and his little girl returning to his flat, then he would have been walking in front of Jane en route to his flat. Cos Janes flat involved a walk in the westerly direction as did Tannermans.
Even you disbelievers cannot reasonably claim that Jane could have thought that the man was walking tangentially in an easterly direction, to her northerly direction, when in actual fact he was walking in a westerly direction ... and was closely preseding her for a substantial distance en route to his flat. Can you?
I don't believe any of you are that thick.
-
Irrelevant. Jane Tanners witness statement is inadmissible as evidence.
It's strong evidence
-
How wise you are; after the event, of course. It's a shame this problem you think you've unearthed didn't occur to you when you were forecasting a McCann win.
What a snide person you are to make that comment. Shame on you; you prefer injustice to justice. That is plain to see.
-
What you don't understand is that 'facts appearing in the PJ files' and 'true facts appearing in the PJ files' were two different things. Had the truth of the information in the files had any relevance to this case the first instance judge wouldn't have dismissed Gerry McCann's attempts to get her involved in that discussion. Ignoring that, you are still trying to convince people that it is relevant. It's not going to work though.
posting as fact again.....so...
As you claim I dont understand, whats the difference between "Facts appearing in the PJ files" and "True facts appearing in the PJ files". It sounds as though you are very confused so lets hear your explanation
-
What a snide person you are to make that comment. Shame on you; you prefer injustice to justice. That is plain to see.
What a judgemental person you are. Shame on you for your unjust criticism of me.
-
posting as fact again.....so...
As you claim I dont understand, whats the difference between "Facts appearing in the PJ files" and "True facts appearing in the PJ files". It sounds as though you are very confused so lets hear your explanation
How many more times do you need things explaining to you? Read this thread.
-
How many more times do you need things explaining to you? Read this thread.
There is a difference between "Facts" and "True Facts" which you don't appear to be able to see.
-
It's a crazy mixed up shook up world where facts can be seen as distinct from true facts. Is this like the difference between the truth and my truth?
-
There is a difference between "Facts" and "True Facts" which you don't appear to be able to see.
A fact is simply a true statement. A true statement is not the same as a statement of truth.
https://www.rollinsperformancegroup.com/blog/the-difference-between-facts-and-truth
-
A fact is simply a true statement. A true statement is not the same as a statement of truth.
https://www.rollinsperformancegroup.com/blog/the-difference-between-facts-and-truth
It would be more helpful if you could give us an example of a fact and a true fact from the case we are discussing.
-
It would be more helpful if you could give us an example of a fact and a true fact from the case we are discussing.
Why? The case we are discussing is the defamation trial and the question to be answered was whether Amaral's book used facts recorded in the PJ files. The answer was that he did. Perhaps Mr Grey might be interested in trying to identify which facts in the PJ files were actually true? Imo there are true facts, but the only ones which can be proved to be true are those such as the names and ages of witnesses.
-
Why? The case we are discussing is the defamation trial and the question to be answered was whether Amaral's book used facts recorded in the PJ files. The answer was that he did. Perhaps Mr Grey might be interested in trying to identify which facts in the PJ files were actually true? Imo there are true facts, but the only ones which can be proved to be true are those such as the names and ages of witnesses.
I don't think talking about facts as distinct from true facts is in any way helpful. It is a fact that the Interim report stated that it was an undeniable fact that the sofa had been moved and that Madeleine died in the apartment. But it is not a fact that the sofa had been moved and that Madeleine died in the apartment. It would be more useful to talk about facts and opinions IMO, just like we do on here, where incidentally we are not allowed to state opinions as facts.
-
How many more times do you need things explaining to you? Read this thread.
If we tra,slate your post into english it reads that you cannot answer the question......thats the truth...what you are saying isnt.
so in simple terms plase answer the question Iasked....I think you havent because you cant... prove me wrong and I will apologise
-
I don't think talking about facts as distinct from true facts is in any way helpful. It is a fact that the Interim report stated that it was an undeniable fact that the sofa had been moved and that Madeleine died in the apartment. But it is not a fact that the sofa had been moved and that Madeleine died in the apartment. It would be more useful to talk about facts and opinions IMO, just like we do on here, where incidentally we are not allowed to state opinions as facts.
Facts and true facts are what Mr Grey is focussing upon, not me. I don't think it's relevant but he does. He thinks it's true that the files contained 'lies', but that is his opinion, not something he or you can prove.
-
*%^^& *%^^&
A fact is simply a true statement. A true statement is not the same as a statement of truth.
https://www.rollinsperformancegroup.com/blog/the-difference-between-facts-and-truth
your post was about facts...not statements
so a fact is a true statement...good...so whats a true fact..
-
Facts and true facts are what Mr Grey is focussing upon, not me. I don't think it's relevant but he does. He thinks it's true that the files contained 'lies', but that is his opinion, not something he or you can prove.
Im talking about facts and what the portuguese court refer to as proven facts..
To claim the dog alerted to cadaver is a fact...proven fact ...is a lie...no opinion...its a false claim. the alert may have been to cadaver but its not a fact...to claim it is ....is a lie.
-
Facts and true facts are what Mr Grey is focussing upon, not me. I don't think it's relevant but he does. He thinks it's true that the files contained 'lies', but that is his opinion, not something he or you can prove.
Almeida stated in the files that the dog had 100 per cent record...it doesnt...a proven lie
-
Im talking about facts and what the portuguese court refer to as proven facts..
To claim the dog alerted to cadaver is a fact...proven fact ...is a lie...no opinion...its a false claim. the alert may have been to cadaver but its not a fact...to claim it is ....is a lie.
*%^^& *%^^&
your post was about facts...not statements
so a fact is a true statement...good...so whats a true fact..
There is one true fact in the files, according to the judge; that Madeleine disappeared. She does explain how she arrived at the 'proven facts' and what is meant by that. I don't expect you to understand though.
Art 27 and 28. The decision concerning this issue faces, firstly, the problem of the dichotomy between "facts ascertained during the investigating process" and "facts that also are part of the investigating process". If “acts ascertained in the investigation" refers to those which, with rigour and according to the procedural-penal dogma, are the result of the investigation that was achieved, then only one deserves this qualification – the disappearance of Madeleine McCann.
All that is part of the investigation, beyond this fact, are clues, means of evidence*, means of obtaining evidence** and theses or hypotheses that are proper to an investigation shelved for lack of evidence. It will therefore be understood that, when are put together the “facts ascertained in the investigation” and the “facts that are part of the investigation”, it is referred to means of obtaining evidence, means of evidence and clues that constitute the proper investigation and are documented in the inquiry.
https://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/v02.htm
Therefore;
27. Are the facts that are reported by defendant Gonçalo Amaral in the book and in the aforementioned interviews, like he himself writes and said, facts that were established during the inquiry?
28. Does the documentary only contain facts that are also in the inquiry files?
(Items 27 & 28) It is proved that the facts in the book and in the documentary, concerning the investigation, are mostly facts that took place in the investigation and are documented as such.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=5931.0
-
There is one true fact in the files, according to the judge; that Madeleine disappeared. She does explain how she arrived at the 'proven facts' and what is meant by that. I don't expect you to understand though.
Art 27 and 28. The decision concerning this issue faces, firstly, the problem of the dichotomy between "facts ascertained during the investigating process" and "facts that also are part of the investigating process". If “acts ascertained in the investigation" refers to those which, with rigour and according to the procedural-penal dogma, are the result of the investigation that was achieved, then only one deserves this qualification – the disappearance of Madeleine McCann.
All that is part of the investigation, beyond this fact, are clues, means of evidence*, means of obtaining evidence** and theses or hypotheses that are proper to an investigation shelved for lack of evidence. It will therefore be understood that, when are put together the “facts ascertained in the investigation” and the “facts that are part of the investigation”, it is referred to means of obtaining evidence, means of evidence and clues that constitute the proper investigation and are documented in the inquiry.
https://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/v02.htm
Therefore;
27. Are the facts that are reported by defendant Gonçalo Amaral in the book and in the aforementioned interviews, like he himself writes and said, facts that were established during the inquiry?
28. Does the documentary only contain facts that are also in the inquiry files?
(Items 27 & 28) It is proved that the facts in the book and in the documentary, concerning the investigation, are mostly facts that took place in the investigation and are documented as such.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=5931.0
I asked you to explain...but you cant....so you simply copy and paste a translation of what the judge says...
You have still not answered when and where wer the proven facts established.
my post on the case which you criticised was my understanding in my own words...yours is a copy and paste because you have no understanding
-
Facts and true facts are what Mr Grey is focussing upon, not me. I don't think it's relevant but he does. He thinks it's true that the files contained 'lies', but that is his opinion, not something he or you can prove.
I believe it was you who first drew the distinction between "facts" and "true facts". The files contain an interpretation of some facts stated as fact when they are merely opinion and that's a fact!
-
Why? The case we are discussing is the defamation trial and the question to be answered was whether Amaral's book used facts recorded in the PJ files. The answer was that he did. Perhaps Mr Grey might be interested in trying to identify which facts in the PJ files were actually true? Imo there are true facts, but the only ones which can be proved to be true are those such as the names and ages of witnesses.
I would say you don't have a clue..
The most important FACT being it WASNT a defamation trial..if it had been the McCann's would have won...I'll explain later..busy now
-
This is my take on the whole issue...im not being arrogant and saying I understand everything....but I think my explanation ticks all the boxes.
the initial trial was not a libel trial it was a damages trial for the hurt and anguish that Amarals claims had caused to the McCanns. the Judge in this trial said it was not important if the facts were true or not..it was a question re did Amaral have the right to say these things. we didnt hear all the evidence and applications but from what I can gather the McCanns lawyers argued he didnt....not because of libel but because of his duty of reserve.....thats why the facts were not important. The McCanns won £1.2 million in damages and were happy.
Amaral appealed and it was decided by the second court who decided he wasnt restricted by the duty of reserve and reversed the decision.
McCanns appeal and say he may not be bound by the duty of reserve but his claims were defamatory. their problem now is they cannot revisit the facts from the first trial ...appeals dont allow that. therefore to facts presented by Amaral at the first trial become set in stone. SC rule no defamation......ECHR rule no defamation based on the established facts, facts taht as they were not challenged at the first trial become establishe dfacts taht cannot be challenged in any subsequent appeal.
Had the Mccanns claimed libel in the first trial...the facts would have been chalenged ..diiscarded and they would have won.
I blame their lawyers.... I may be totally wrong... but I dont think so...if anyone can challenge any of my points i would be interested
-
This is my take on the whole issue...im not being arrogant and saying I understand everything....but I think my explanation ticks all the boxes.
the initial trial was not a libel trial it was a damages trial for the hurt and anguish that Amarals claims had caused to the McCanns. the Judge in this trial said it was not important if the facts were true or not..it was a question re did Amaral have the right to say these things. we didnt hear all the evidence and applications but from what I can gather the McCanns lawyers argued he didnt....not because of libel but because of his duty of reserve.....thats why the facts were not important. The McCanns won £1.2 million in damages and were happy.
Amaral appealed and it was decided by the second court who decided he wasnt restricted by the duty of reserve and reversed the decision.
McCanns appeal and say he may not be bound by the duty of reserve but his claims were defamatory. their problem now is they cannot revisit the facts from the first trial ...appeals dont allow that. therefore to facts presented by Amaral at the first trial become set in stone. SC rule no defamation......ECHR rule no defamation based on the established facts, facts taht as they were not challenged at the first trial become establishe dfacts taht cannot be challenged in any subsequent appeal.
Had the Mccanns claimed libel in the first trial...the facts would have been chalenged ..diiscarded and they would have won.
I blame their lawyers.... I may be totally wrong... but I dont think so...if anyone can challenge any of my points i would be interested
You seem to have found an explanation which allows you to accept the court's decisions, so carry on.
-
This is my take on the whole issue...im not being arrogant and saying I understand everything....but I think my explanation ticks all the boxes.
the initial trial was not a libel trial it was a damages trial for the hurt and anguish that Amarals claims had caused to the McCanns. the Judge in this trial said it was not important if the facts were true or not..it was a question re did Amaral have the right to say these things. we didnt hear all the evidence and applications but from what I can gather the McCanns lawyers argued he didnt....not because of libel but because of his duty of reserve.....thats why the facts were not important. The McCanns won £1.2 million in damages and were happy.
Amaral appealed and it was decided by the second court who decided he wasnt restricted by the duty of reserve and reversed the decision.
McCanns appeal and say he may not be bound by the duty of reserve but his claims were defamatory. their problem now is they cannot revisit the facts from the first trial ...appeals dont allow that. therefore to facts presented by Amaral at the first trial become set in stone. SC rule no defamation......ECHR rule no defamation based on the established facts, facts taht as they were not challenged at the first trial become establishe dfacts taht cannot be challenged in any subsequent appeal.
Had the Mccanns claimed libel in the first trial...the facts would have been chalenged ..diiscarded and they would have won.
I blame their lawyers.... I may be totally wrong... but I dont think so...if anyone can challenge any of my points i would be interested
sounds entirely plausible and logical.
-
You seem to have found an explanation which allows you to accept the court's decisions, so carry on.
What an ungracious response...I won't rub your nose in it you must be feeling very inferior. I note you cannot contradict one statement I have made. The difference between us is I got the result wrong but I understand why..others were right but haven't got a clue why .I place you in that gr iup. Id much rather be the one who actually understands the principles involved. You've offered nothing but a cut and paste whereas I've provided a perfectly logical reasoned argument that no one else has come up with.
The facts proposed by the PJ became proven as regards that particular trial as soon as the verdict in the McCann's favour was made in the first trial.
-
What an ungracious response...I won't rub your nose in it you must be feeling very inferior. I note you cannot contradict one statement I have made. The difference between us is I got the result wrong but I understand why..others were right but haven't got a clue why .I place you in that gr iup. Id much rather be the one who actually understands the principles involved. You've offered nothing but a cut and paste whereas I've provided a perfectly logical reasoned argument that no one else has come up with.
The facts proposed by the PJ became proven as regards that particular trial as soon as the verdict in the McCann's favour was made in the first trial.
Whatever....just as long as you finally shut up and accept that you did indeed get the result wrong.
-
Whatever....just as long as you finally shut up and accept that you did indeed get the result wrong.
How very rude.
-
How very rude.
It must be catching. @)(++(*
-
Whatever....just as long as you finally shut up and accept that you did indeed get the result wrong.
Youve really got the hump because Ive shown you up and shown how ignorant of the facts and how little understanding of the process you have. Is that what you would like ..for me to shut up and leave the forum...is telling posters who post polite posts to finally shut up what John had in mind when he made you a mod. Your wounded responses are hilarious...will your pride ever recover...I doubt it...LOL ..
-
I wrote my idea off the cuff without checking anything..is it's right then the alerts should not be listed as proven facts in the first trial...,just checked and they're not
-
I think over the years of litigation it is worth remembering that the McCanns consistently won the argument only to have it all just as consistently overturned in appeal courts.
Resulting from that, is it just me, or does anyone else think about the alleged Ace up his sleeve.
Anyway it's all water under the bridge now.
Snip
Mr Amaral was ordered to pay the McCanns €500,000 in libel damages by a Lisbon court in 2015, but the decision was overturned and then thrown out by the Portuguese Supreme Court in 2017.
In a statement after the ruling, the McCanns expressed their disappointment but added: "Much has changed since we started legal proceedings 13 years ago against Mr Amaral, his publisher and broadcaster.
"We took action for one and only one reason: Mr Amaral's unfounded claims were having a detrimental impact on the search for Madeleine.
"If the public believed that we were involved in her disappearance, then people would not be alert for possible clues and may not report relevant information to the relevant law enforcement agencies.
"The focus is now rightly on the search for Madeleine and her abductor(s)."
https://news.sky.com/story/madeleine-mccanns-parents-lose-case-against-portuguese-ex-detective-goncalo-amaral-12701770
-
I think over the years of litigation it is worth remembering that the McCanns consistently won the argument only to have it all just as consistently overturned in appeal courts.
Resulting from that, is it just me, or does anyone else think about the alleged Ace up his sleeve.
Anyway it's all water under the bridge now.
Snip
Mr Amaral was ordered to pay the McCanns €500,000 in libel damages by a Lisbon court in 2015, but the decision was overturned and then thrown out by the Portuguese Supreme Court in 2017.
In a statement after the ruling, the McCanns expressed their disappointment but added: "Much has changed since we started legal proceedings 13 years ago against Mr Amaral, his publisher and broadcaster.
"We took action for one and only one reason: Mr Amaral's unfounded claims were having a detrimental impact on the search for Madeleine.
"If the public believed that we were involved in her disappearance, then people would not be alert for possible clues and may not report relevant information to the relevant law enforcement agencies.
"The focus is now rightly on the search for Madeleine and her abductor(s)."
https://news.sky.com/story/madeleine-mccanns-parents-lose-case-against-portuguese-ex-detective-goncalo-amaral-12701770
Couldn't agree more
-
Youve really got the hump because Ive shown you up and shown how ignorant of the facts and how little understanding of the process you have. Is that what you would like ..for me to shut up and leave the forum...is telling posters who post polite posts to finally shut up what John had in mind when he made you a mod. Your wounded responses are hilarious...will your pride ever recover...I doubt it...LOL ..
I don't think it's me who's desperately trying to erase my misunderstanding of the issues from people's minds. I think it's someone else who's pride is wounded, not mine. My self-esteem is fine, because it doesn't depend upon being admired on here.
I never told you to leave the forum, by the way, just to stop flogging the dead horse of the thread title. The McCanns appealed to the ECHR and lost. No-one breached their human rights.
-
I don't think it's me who's desperately trying to erase my misunderstanding of the issues from people's minds. I think it's someone else who's pride is wounded, not mine. My self-esteem is fine, because it doesn't depend upon being admired on here.
I never told you to leave the forum, by the way, just to stop flogging the dead horse of the thread title. The McCanns appealed to the ECHR and lost. No-one breached their human rights.
Again there is so much wrong with your post and its clear your ego is incredibly bruised...its plain for all to see . i offerred a well resourced logical argument as opposed to you who could only manage insults.
Youre wrong about me trying to erase anything from peoples mind....Im simply trying to understand how the decision was reached. You constantly dissect the minutia of the case against the McCanns even though there is no admissible evidence against them......they can never be charged yet accuse me of flogging a dead horse. its laughable. You need to stop thinking its your place to tell posters what they should and shouldnt discuss...its not your place...do you understand.
Intelligent people dont just want to know what hapened ....they want to know why it happened. i may have got the result wrong but my knowledge and understanding of the principles involved is way ahead of anything you could hope to acheive...you prove that yesterday when all you could manage was insults and cut and pastes..
My analysis yesterday might not be 100% correct but it show a level of understanding you just could not match...and thats what irks you
I intended to be humble and kind to you after your humiliation...but you had to try and insult me...you shouldnt bothered.......you cannot insult me...water off a a ducks back
-
Couldn't agree more
I agree. We should be focusing on the abductor, & the case against him, & how incredibly well that's going....
-
I think over the years of litigation it is worth remembering that the McCanns consistently won the argument only to have it all just as consistently overturned in appeal courts.
Resulting from that, is it just me, or does anyone else think about the alleged Ace up his sleeve.
Anyway it's all water under the bridge now.
Snip
Mr Amaral was ordered to pay the McCanns €500,000 in libel damages by a Lisbon court in 2015, but the decision was overturned and then thrown out by the Portuguese Supreme Court in 2017.
In a statement after the ruling, the McCanns expressed their disappointment but added: "Much has changed since we started legal proceedings 13 years ago against Mr Amaral, his publisher and broadcaster.
"We took action for one and only one reason: Mr Amaral's unfounded claims were having a detrimental impact on the search for Madeleine.
"If the public believed that we were involved in her disappearance, then people would not be alert for possible clues and may not report relevant information to the relevant law enforcement agencies.
"The focus is now rightly on the search for Madeleine and her abductor(s)."
https://news.sky.com/story/madeleine-mccanns-parents-lose-case-against-portuguese-ex-detective-goncalo-amaral-12701770
They convinced one judge that they were right. I don't think they won any other arguments.
-
They convinced one judge that they were right. I don't think they won any other arguments.
Theyve won the argumnet that Amaral was wrong and his thesis based on lies not facts. You need to shut up and stop flogging the dead horse claiming otherwise
-
Theyve won the argumnet that Amaral was wrong and his thesis based on lies not facts. You need to shut up and stop flogging the dead horse claiming otherwise
Where & when was that supposed to have happened?
-
Seems a strange way of winning an argument, losing a court case.
-
Theyve won the argumnet that Amaral was wrong and his thesis based on lies not facts. You need to shut up and stop flogging the dead horse claiming otherwise
His thesis wasn't based on figments of his imagination, it was based on facts which were recorded in the investigation files.
-
They convinced one judge that they were right. I don't think they won any other arguments.
The book written to malign the McCanns to which they took exception because it was impeding their search for Madeleine, was a book full of lies.
I highlight it as their search for Madeleine because it was written and published at a time when no-one else in the entire world was looking for her. The fact is Judicial Police hadn't been since the focus of Portuguese investigations had been switched from the search for Madeleine McCann to focus on the best way to go about prosecuting the her parents for her demise.
Ultimately present activity on Madeleine's case which is an evidence led investigation into stranger abduction has achieved exactly what the Portuguese judiciary endeavoured to cover up with the planned outcome ending up in the European Court.
There are no winners here with as you have indicated the biggest loser being Madeleine. But I think your pots wallow in eulogising what is in effect a Pyrrhic victory for Portugal with Madeleine's parents totally vindicated and Portuguese Jurisprudence at all levels well and truly put under microscopic scrutiny.
https://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/jurisprudence#:~:text=Jurisprudence%20From%20the%20Latin%20term%20juris%20prudentia%2C%20which,branches%2C%20with%20four%20types%20being%20the%20most%20common.
I don't think that was ever meant to happen. All was well until "stranger danger" in the form of Brueckner loomed.
One thing it explains for me is why Amaral did what he did when this unscripted event negated the achievements of the Portuguese courts.
Thing is while you might be ecstatic about the ECHR decision, you might pause to contemplate the comparison I have drawn and the reasons making it irrelevant.
-
His thesis wasn't based on figments of his imagination, it was based on facts which were recorded in the investigation files.
Do you even know what a "thesis" is.
My opinion is that the long path to the ECHR was paved with lack of education and lack of understanding as a result.
-
His thesis wasn't based on figments of his imagination, it was based on facts which were recorded in the investigation files.
So you think it's a fact that the cadaver dog had never been wrong.
So CB is guilty based on the available facts.
As they say.. sometimes it's best just to let people think you are a fool rather than opening your mouth and confirming it
-
Do you even know what a "thesis" is.
My opinion is that the long path to the ECHR was paved with lack of education and lack of understanding as a result.
Should I rephrase it? His interpretation if that helps your understanding.
The long path to the ECHR began with a mistaken belief that Amaral breached the restrictions his retired status placed on him, followed by increasingly desperate and unsuccessful attempts to rescue the situation.
-
So you think it's a fact that the cadaver dog had never been wrong.
So CB is guilty based on the available facts.
As they say.. sometimes it's best just to let people think you are a fool rather than opening your mouth and confirming it
It's a fact that that claim appeared in the files.
-
His thesis wasn't based on figments of his imagination, it was based on facts which were recorded in the investigation files.
Based on proven lies...you need to wake uo
-
Based on proven lies...you need to wake uo
As the first judge said, the only known true fact in those files was that Madeleine McCann disappeared.
-
As the first judge said, the only known true fact in those files was that Madeleine McCann disappeared.
That is absolute rubbish.
-
Should I rephrase it? His interpretation if that helps your understanding.
The long path to the ECHR began with a mistaken belief that Amaral breached the restrictions his retired status placed on him, followed by increasingly desperate and unsuccessful attempts to rescue the situation.
The long path to the ECHR began with a lie and it ended with a lie and the route between start and finish was a route paved with malicious lies. It is beyond my comprehension why anyone who ever looked at the assertions made by Amaral was ever taken in by them.
Snip
"What is at stake here is a victory of the Portuguese justice against those who do not want the discovery of the truth, nor the realization of justice," says Gonçalo Amaral.
https://rr.sapo.pt/noticia/pais/2022/09/20/goncalo-amaral-acusa-pj-de-deixar-cair-investigacao-ao-caso-maddie/300435/
Going to Hell in a handcart springs to mind.
-
It's a fact that that claim appeared in the files.
you are tying yourself in knots and making yourself look stupid......carry on if you wish.
You posted..."A fact is simply a true statement"
Some of the statemets in the files are not statements of truth and are therefore not facts......
Amarals thesis may be based on the files but not on facts in the files.
So it is absolutely not true to say his thesis is based on facts in the files.
-
It's a fact that that claim appeared in the files.
The claim was made by people who hadn't a clue what they were talking about while working on Amaral's thesis.
Subsequent study invalidated and cancelled out that initial premise.
Taken together the sum of those sentences indicate that you do not have a clue what you are talking about nor do you understand what a thesis is.
-
That is absolute rubbish.
They couldn't even name the crime.
-
The fact is that The Court of The First Instance, overseen by The New School is often overruled by The Supreme Court which is overseen by The Old School.
Nothing will change in Portugal until The Old School are all dead. Or senile, which some of them already appear to be.
-
They couldn't even name the crime.
No way?!
But what about all the evidence Madeleine was taken in a criminal act by a stranger?
-
No way?!
But what about all the evidence Madeleine was taken in a criminal act by a stranger?
According to gunit the abduction is based in facts
-
According to gunit the abduction is based in facts
Well yes. I seem to recall that the abductor dog alerted to the presence of abductor odour in the McCanns apartment. That is a statement of truth & a proven fact.
-
Well yes. I seem to recall that the abductor dog alerted to the presence of abductor odour in the McCanns apartment. That is a statement of truth & a proven fact.
its based on facts ...CB being the murderer is based on facts....
-
They couldn't even name the crime.
there are a thousand and one "true facts" in the files. The crime has been named now anyway, it's in a German file somewhere - Madeleine was murdered by CB so it must be a fact, innit.
-
there are a thousand and one "true facts" in the files. The crime has been named now anyway, it's in a German file somewhere - Madeleine was murdered by CB so it must be a fact, innit.
What an injustice, if so. Innit?
But seems the ECHR would accept it, if that is the case The ECHR Law MUST be sorted.
Surely Germany doesn't have the same arcane laws as Portugal ?
If it has, German Law needs sorting too.
-
What an injustice, if so. Innit?
But seems the ECHR would accept it, if that is the case The ECHR Law MUST be sorted.
Surely Germany doesn't have the same arcane laws as Portugal ?
If it has, German Law needs sorting too.
Portugal and Germany, along with the rest of Europe, use the civil law system. The UK uses common law, which is not as widespread as civil law.
-
Portugal and Germany, along with the rest of Europe, use the civil law system. The UK uses common law, which is not as widespread as civil law.
Maybe its the UK that's out of step with much of the world. Wouldn't be the first time.
-
Maybe its the UK that's out of step with much of the world. Wouldn't be the first time.
Not really..were just having a joke at gunits expense
-
Maybe its the UK that's out of step with much of the world. Wouldn't be the first time.
It's probably more accurate to describe it as English law, where it was historically developed, although it came to dominate in the other UK countries too.
-
Maybe its the UK that's out of step with much of the world. Wouldn't be the first time.
We’re 15th out of nearly 200 countries in the Rule of Law index, twelve places higher that Portugal, so not that much out of step with the rest of the world actually.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Justice_Project
-
I prefer Shariah Law as practiced by the Taliban.
-
I prefer Shariah Law as practiced by the Taliban.
I don't think females get a very good deal under that system.
-
I don't think females get a very good deal under that system.
Sorry G. You're only allowed to speak to me when accompanied by a male chaperone.
-
Sorry G. You're only allowed to speak to me when accompanied by a male chaperone.
I remember when daughters in European families were only allowed out in the evenings if a male relative accompanied them.
-
I remember when daughters in European families were only allowed out in the evenings if a male relative accompanied them.
I am beginning to wonder if either of you should be allowed out on your own. Let alone let loose on The Internet.
-
I don't think females get a very good deal under that system.
I’m always surprised by the far right’s antipathy to Muslims and Shariah Law when basically they have so many things in common.
-
I am beginning to wonder if either of you should be allowed out on your own. Let alone let loose on The Internet.
How rude!
-
How rude!
Not very original, is it.
-
Not very original, is it.
Originality is in short supply here imo.
-
Originality is in short supply here imo.
You would know more about that than I would.
-
His thesis wasn't based on figments of his imagination, it was based on facts which were recorded in the investigation files.
The points in the files Amaral based his thesis on were not facts...Youve defined a fact as a statement of truth. You are contradicting yourself
-
The points in the files Amaral based his thesis on were not facts...Youve defined a fact as a statement of truth. You are contradicting yourself
You said the McCanns would win their case at the ECHR.
-
You said the McCanns would win their case at the ECHR.
And I've explained why they didn't..you've done nothing but try to goad and insult....and failed on both
-
And I've explained why they didn't..you've done nothing but try to goad and insult....and failed on both
Maybe you should forget making predictions in future then.
-
Maybe you should forget making predictions in future then.
I worked out exactly why the mcCanns lost and why the evidence was not properly examined....and it was nothing to do with the fact that it was a civil not a criminal trial as you claimed. it was because it wasnt initially a libel trial.
If it had been a libel trial the evidence would have been examined in the first trial and the mccanns would have won.
it took some working out and Im the only one whos managed to do it.
-
I worked out exactly why the mcCanns lost and why the evidence was not properly examined....and it was nothing to do with the fact that it was a civil not a criminal trial as you claimed. it was because it wasnt initially a libel trial.
If it had been a libel trial the evidence would have been examined in the first trial and the mccanns would have won.
it took some working out and Im the only one whos managed to do it.
You should stop kidding yourself. A civil trial couldn't make decisions about the evidence gathered in a criminal investigation.
-
You should stop kidding yourself. A civil trial couldn't make decisions about the evidence gathered in a criminal investigation.
then explain how the dogs alert became a proven fact in a civil trial....when the evidence was gathered in a criminal investigation.
Then expalin how OJ simpson was ruled guilty in a civil trial on evidence gathered in a criminal trial ..
you havent got a gram of understanding of the principles involved...your lack of understanding is laughable...proved on that point alone
-
then explain how the dogs alert became a proven fact in a civil trial....when the evidence was gathered in a criminal investigation.
Then expalin how OJ simpson was ruled guilty in a civil trial on evidence gathered in a criminal trial ..
you havent got a gram of understanding of the principles involved...your lack of understanding is laughable...proved on that point alone
Because the court was checking Amaral's claim that he used the information in the files of the criminal investigation in his book.
You can't compare American and Portuguese legal systems, as one is basically a common law system and the other is a civil law system.
It is your understanding which is laughable.
-
Because the court was checking Amaral's claim that he used the information in the files of the criminal investigation in his book.
You can't compare American and Portuguese legal systems, as one is basically a common law system and the other is a civil law system.
It is your understanding which is laughable.
You followed in the footsteps of Carana who is also wrong. Civil trials look at facts gathered in criminal investigations..you'd have to be a complete idiot not to understand that....and you don't.
-
You followed in the footsteps of Carana who is also wrong. Civil trials look at facts gathered in criminal investigations..you'd have to be a complete idiot not to understand that....and you don't.
You are getting sidetracked by a case in America which was under a different legal system, and dealng with facts which had been established in a criminal trial. As the judge observed, the only fact established was that Madeleine had disappeared.
-
You are getting sidetracked by a case in America which was under a different legal system, and dealng with facts which had been established in a criminal trial. As the judge observed, the only fact established was that Madeleine had disappeared.
You still think you're right which is laughable
If what you think is correct...
How can the dog alerts ...part of the criminal investigation,,....be a proven fact in a civil case..
You're tying yourself in knots l o l
Any civil case can use facts from a criminal investigation....
-
You still think you're right which is laughable
If what you think is correct...
How can the dog alerts ...part of the criminal investigation,,....be a proven fact in a civil case..
You're tying yourself in knots l o l
Any civil case can use facts from a criminal investigation....
It's clear we'll never agree so I don't know why you wish to continue this debate. The McCanns and their lawyers tried with all their might to prove their case and they failed. They seem to have accepted that and you should do the same imo.
-
It's clear we'll never agree so I don't know why you wish to continue this debate. The McCanns and their lawyers tried with all their might to prove their case and they failed. They seem to have accepted that and you should do the same imo.
It's not a matter of agreeing ..you're totally wrong and don't understand the legal principles involved.
The McCanns didn't fail ...their lawyers did but you still don't understand why.
What do you imagine I don't accept..it's you who doesn't accept you're wrong
I've explained why the alerts were not proven facts in the first trial but you still don't understand
-
It's not a matter of agreeing ..you're totally wrong and don't understand the legal principles involved.
The McCanns didn't fail ...their lawyers did but you still don't understand why.
What do you imagine I don't accept..it's you who doesn't accept you're wrong
I've explained why the alerts were not proven facts in the first trial but you still don't understand
You think I don't understand and I think you don't understand. Neither of us will ever convince the other, so I see no point in further discussion. In my opinion your ego has been wounded and that's what's driving you to continue to flog this dead horse.
You blame the McCann's lawyers, but you should remember that the one who pays the piper calls the tune. The writing was on the wall as early as October 2010 when the injunction against Amaral's book and documentary was overturned by the Appeal Court because they neither damaged the investigation by her parents into Madeleine's disappearance nor did they affect the couple's human rights. (madeleine page 363)
-
You think I don't understand and I think you don't understand. Neither of us will ever convince the other, so I see no point in further discussion. In my opinion your ego has been wounded and that's what's driving you to continue to flog this dead horse.
You blame the McCann's lawyers, but you should remember that the one who pays the piper calls the tune. The writing was on the wall as early as October 2010 when the injunction against Amaral's book and documentary was overturned by the Appeal Court because they neither damaged the investigation by her parents into Madeleine's disappearance nor did they affect the couple's human rights. (madeleine page 363)
I know you don't understand ...you think you do. You don't even make any sense. Your claim that facts from a criminal trial can't be used in a civil trial is preposterous and proven wrong. It's you who is wounded because you've been shown to be ignorant of the true facts. I see Carana seems to accept her mistake ..you can't..
-
You think I don't understand and I think you don't understand. Neither of us will ever convince the other, so I see no point in further discussion. In my opinion your ego has been wounded and that's what's driving you to continue to flog this dead horse.
You blame the McCann's lawyers, but you should remember that the one who pays the piper calls the tune. The writing was on the wall as early as October 2010 when the injunction against Amaral's book and documentary was overturned by the Appeal Court because they neither damaged the investigation by her parents into Madeleine's disappearance nor did they affect the couple's human rights. (madeleine page 363)
Can you show where the Mccanns sued Amaral for libel...thats the important point.
if they had sued him for libel the facts would have been examined and the dog alerts discredited. they sued for damages based on his Duty of Reserve.....thats why the judge said the facts were not important. ive expalined it all a couple of days ago. I dont see any poster here or elsewhere understanding this point. You yourself said afew days ago it was a libel trial.
do yyou understand now how amaral got away with libel...i dont think you do
-
Can you show where the Mccanns sued Amaral for libel...thats the important point.
if they had sued him for libel the facts would have been examined and the dog alerts discredited. they sued for damages based on his Duty of Reserve.....thats why the judge said the facts were not important. ive expalined it all a couple of days ago. I dont see any poster here or elsewhere understanding this point. You yourself said afew days ago it was a libel trial.
do yyou understand now how amaral got away with libel...i dont think you do
Please try not to think that we are all unable to understand. Although I agree that Gunit isn't able. Or probably doesn't want to, which might be more to the point.
-
It's not a matter of agreeing ..you're totally wrong and don't understand the legal principles involved.
The McCanns didn't fail ...their lawyers did but you still don't understand why.
What do you imagine I don't accept..it's you who doesn't accept you're wrong
I've explained why the alerts were not proven facts in the first trial but you still don't understand
You argue the lawyers failed, how could they argue against the first judgement which was in their favour which contained the statement of fact concerning the dogs, should they not of accepted the judgement ?
At which point did the lawyers fail ?
-
You argue the lawyers failed, how could they argue against the first judgement which was in their favour which contained the statement of fact concerning the dogs, should they not of accepted the judgement ?
At which point did the lawyers fail ?
the first judgements list of proven facts did not contain the statement of facts re the dogs........the truth of that staetement was of no importance as the first judge pointed out . It wasnt important because it wasnt a ibel trial.
thats where the lawyers failed. If it had been a libel trial the McCanns would have won
-
Please try not to think that we are all unable to understand. Although I agree that Gunit isn't able. Or probably doesn't want to, which might be more to the point.
im not being dismissive of anyone. ive asked many times how the dog alerts became a proven fact....when they werent. No one has ben able to answer........but now Ive worked it out. ...and ive already explaned it
-
When the Judge dismissed Gerry for contesting the dogs evidence....that was due to the incompetence of the McCanns lawyers
-
When the Judge dismissed Gerry for contesting the dogs evidence....that was due to the incompetence of the McCanns lawyers
Reported to moderator for defaming the McCanns lawyers.
-
Reported to moderator for defaming the McCanns lawyers.
If they tried to sue me they'd cock it up
-
the first judgements list of proven facts did not contain the statement of facts re the dogs........the truth of that staetement was of no importance as the first judge pointed out . It wasnt important because it wasnt a ibel trial.
thats where the lawyers failed. If it had been a libel trial the McCanns would have won
From the 1st judgement.Proven facts.
https://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=6307.0
6. The British police dogs “Eddie” and “Keela” detected human blood and cadaver in the apartment 5A, Ocean Club [alínea AR) of the undisputed facts].
7. The British police dogs “Eddie” and “Keela” detected human blood and cadaver in a vehicle rented by the claimants after the disappearance of MMC [alínea AS) of the undisputed facts].
-
From the 1st judgement.Proven facts.
https://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=6307.0
6. The British police dogs “Eddie” and “Keela” detected human blood and cadaver in the apartment 5A, Ocean Club [alínea AR) of the undisputed facts].
7. The British police dogs “Eddie” and “Keela” detected human blood and cadaver in a vehicle rented by the claimants after the disappearance of MMC [alínea AS) of the undisputed facts].
Very good..now show the proven facts from the initial trial...
-
Very good..now show the proven facts from the initial trial...
No, your argument should be how the judge came to determine the proven facts. Now once again you're argument now seems to be that the McCann lawyers cocked up, how could they contest the judgement in their favour ?
Now some where along the way the McCann's would have been advised which course of action to take although ultimately the person who pays the piper calls the tune.
-
Can you show where the Mccanns sued Amaral for libel...thats the important point.
if they had sued him for libel the facts would have been examined and the dog alerts discredited. they sued for damages based on his Duty of Reserve.....thats why the judge said the facts were not important. ive expalined it all a couple of days ago. I dont see any poster here or elsewhere understanding this point. You yourself said afew days ago it was a libel trial.
do yyou understand now how amaral got away with libel...i dont think you do
Read Kate McCann's book. Isabel Duarte was, she says, a libel lawyer. After obtaining an injunction, she says, the next step was to sue Amaral 'for libel'; 'a libel case against Amaral is pending'. She seems to have misunderstood what they were doing.
-
Please try not to think that we are all unable to understand. Although I agree that Gunit isn't able. Or probably doesn't want to, which might be more to the point.
I understand Mr Gray's arguments Eleanor, but I certainly don't agree with them.
-
I understand Mr Gray's arguments Eleanor, but I certainly don't agree with them.
You have claimed a civil case cannot rely on facts collected in a criminal case....thats wrong and Ive proved it. Dont even think you understand.
Youve referred to it as a libel trial...more junk. in a Libel trial the facts of the case would have been disputed. The trial was brought on the basis Amaral had broken his Duty of Reserve. As the facts were no challenged they becone established. Any appeal can only look at points of law or new evidence...they cannot go back and dispute the evidence unless new evidence comes to light
-
You have claimed a civil case cannot rely on facts collected in a criminal case....thats wrong and Ive proved it. Dont even think you understand.
Youve referred to it as a libel trial...more junk. in a Libel trial the facts of the case would have been disputed. The trial was brought on the basis Amaral had broken his Duty of Reserve. As the facts were no challenged they becone established. Any appeal can only look at points of law or new evidence...they cannot go back and dispute the evidence unless new evidence comes to light
I think I have said a civil trial can't judge the facts collected in a criminal investigation; not in Portugal, anyway. Your 'proof' involves an American case using facts established in a criminal trial, so a very different thing.
Who misled the allegedly intelligent Kate McCann who thought they sued Amaral for libel then?
Fancy you not knowing what the first judgement included! Or were you just lying when you said the first judgement's list of proven facts did not contain the statement of facts re the dogs?
-
I think I have said a civil trial can't judge the facts collected in a criminal investigation; not in Portugal, anyway. Your 'proof' involves an American case using facts established in a criminal trial, so a very different thing.
Who misled the allegedly intelligent Kate McCann who thought they sued Amaral for libel then?
Fancy you not knowing what the first judgement included! Or were you just lying when you said the first judgement's list of proven facts did not contain the statement of facts re the dogs?
The proof is the fact that the dog alerts were included in the civil trial and judged to be proven facts..that's evidence from a criminal investigation used in a civil trial in Portugal.
The proven facts in the initial trial in Jan 2015 do not reference the alerts.
The only lie is you claiming you understand..you're all over the place with contradictions
It's quite possible Kate misunderstood
-
If the veracity of Amaral’s claims were never tested in court then obviously it wasn’t a libel trial IMO.
-
The proof is the fact that the dog alerts were included in the civil trial and judged to be proven facts..that's evidence from a criminal investigation used in a civil trial in Portugal.
The proven facts in the initial trial in Jan 2015 do not reference the alerts.
The only lie is you claiming you understand..you're all over the place with contradictions
It's quite possible Kate misunderstood
You think you can continue to tell lies, when the truth is written down for all to see?
PROVED FACTS
Taking into account the matter considered undisputed in the selection of facts and the decision handed down in due course after producing the matter of evidence and discussing the case, the following facts are demonstrated :
1. The claimants KM and GM are married to each other
2. The claimant Madeleine Beth McCann was born on the 12.05.2003 and is the daughter of the claimants Kate and Gerry McCann
3. The claimant Sean McCann was born on the 01.02.2005 and is the son of the claimants Kate and Gerry McCann
4. The claimant Amelie McCann was born on the 01.02.2005 and is the daughter of the claimants Kate and Gerry McCann
5. The claimant Madeleine Beth McCann has been missing since the 3rd of May of 2007, and the criminal investigation n. 201/07.0GALGS was open by the Public Prosecutor of the Republic for the Portimao District.
6. The British police dogs “Eddie” and “Keela” detected human blood and cadaver in the apartment 5A, Ocean Club [alínea AR) of the undisputed facts].
7. The British police dogs “Eddie” and “Keela” detected human blood and cadaver in a vehicle rented by the claimants after the disappearance of MMC [alínea AS) of the undisputed facts].
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=6307.0
Seems like they misunderstood too; or just believed what the McCanns told them....
Lawyers for Kate and Gerry McCann argued that the Portuguese authorities had breached their right to respect for a private and family life in the way the courts there dealt with their libel claims against Goncalo Amaral.
https://news.sky.com/story/madeleine-mccanns-parents-lose-case-against-portuguese-ex-detective-goncalo-amaral-12701770
Kate and Gerry McCann appealed to the European Court of Human Rights over a Portuguese decision in their libel challenge over Goncalo Amaral's claims.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-62967119
Kate and Gerry McCann lost latest round of legal battle with Goncalo Amaral
Pair had sued Portuguese ex-cop for libel after he published a book suggesting they were involved in the disappearance of daughter Madeleine in 2007
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11230233/European-Court-Human-Rights-rules-against-parents-Madeleine-McCann-case-against-Portugal.html
-
It's odd isn't it? For years, prominent sceptics on the internet were adamant that the media reporting was wrong and that this was not a libel trial. Now it seems important to them that it was a libel trial. Bizarre. *%87
-
It's odd isn't it? For years, prominent sceptics on the internet were adamant that the media reporting was wrong and that this was not a libel trial. Now it seems important to them that it was a libel trial. Bizarre. *%87
Whatever suits them at the time it seems. They do this a lot.
-
It's odd isn't it? For years, prominent sceptics on the internet were adamant that the media reporting was wrong and that this was not a libel trial. Now it seems important to them that it was a libel trial. Bizarre. *%87
Can the McCanns and the media be wrong? Who'd of thunk it.... @)(++(*
-
Can the McCanns and the media be wrong? Who'd of thunk it.... @)(++(*
Does that mean you're saying it wasn't a libel trial? Yet you seem to be arguing that it was. *%87
-
ID opening statement , so what is the argument ? in what way would it effect the family ?
In this trial we're discussing the effects on the McCann family of the publication of GA's book and the documentary inspired by this book.
https://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=2240.0
Topic: McCann v Gonçalo Amaral Libel Trial in Lisbon - Day 1
-
You think you can continue to tell lies, when the truth is written down for all to see?
PROVED FACTS
Taking into account the matter considered undisputed in the selection of facts and the decision handed down in due course after producing the matter of evidence and discussing the case, the following facts are demonstrated :
1. The claimants KM and GM are married to each other
2. The claimant Madeleine Beth McCann was born on the 12.05.2003 and is the daughter of the claimants Kate and Gerry McCann
3. The claimant Sean McCann was born on the 01.02.2005 and is the son of the claimants Kate and Gerry McCann
4. The claimant Amelie McCann was born on the 01.02.2005 and is the daughter of the claimants Kate and Gerry McCann
5. The claimant Madeleine Beth McCann has been missing since the 3rd of May of 2007, and the criminal investigation n. 201/07.0GALGS was open by the Public Prosecutor of the Republic for the Portimao District.
6. The British police dogs “Eddie” and “Keela” detected human blood and cadaver in the apartment 5A, Ocean Club [alínea AR) of the undisputed facts].
7. The British police dogs “Eddie” and “Keela” detected human blood and cadaver in a vehicle rented by the claimants after the disappearance of MMC [alínea AS) of the undisputed facts].
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=6307.0
Seems like they misunderstood too; or just believed what the McCanns told them....
Lawyers for Kate and Gerry McCann argued that the Portuguese authorities had breached their right to respect for a private and family life in the way the courts there dealt with their libel claims against Goncalo Amaral.
https://news.sky.com/story/madeleine-mccanns-parents-lose-case-against-portuguese-ex-detective-goncalo-amaral-12701770
Kate and Gerry McCann appealed to the European Court of Human Rights over a Portuguese decision in their libel challenge over Goncalo Amaral's claims.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-62967119
Kate and Gerry McCann lost latest round of legal battle with Goncalo Amaral
Pair had sued Portuguese ex-cop for libel after he published a book suggesting they were involved in the disappearance of daughter Madeleine in 2007
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11230233/European-Court-Human-Rights-rules-against-parents-Madeleine-McCann-case-against-Portugal.html
Is it now acceptable to refer to a poster as a liar....I will reply fully later when john has clarified things.
-
Is it now acceptable to refer to a poster as a liar....I will reply fully later when john has clarified things.
Only if they lie, I would think;
the first judgements list of proven facts did not contain the statement of facts re the dogs
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=8465.msg701492#msg701492
From the 1st judgement.Proven facts.
https://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=6307.0
6. The British police dogs “Eddie” and “Keela” detected human blood and cadaver in the apartment 5A, Ocean Club [alínea AR) of the undisputed facts].
7. The British police dogs “Eddie” and “Keela” detected human blood and cadaver in a vehicle rented by the claimants after the disappearance of MMC [alínea AS) of the undisputed facts].
-
ID opening statement , so what is the argument ? in what way would it effect the family ?
In this trial we're discussing the effects on the McCann family of the publication of GA's book and the documentary inspired by this book.
https://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=2240.0
Topic: McCann v Gonçalo Amaral Libel Trial in Lisbon - Day 1/
Yes, that's what John called it in the Thread Title - is he the last word on the subject then?
-
Only if they lie, I would think;
the first judgements list of proven facts did not contain the statement of facts re the dogs
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=8465.msg701492#msg701492
From the 1st judgement.Proven facts.
https://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=6307.0
6. The British police dogs “Eddie” and “Keela” detected human blood and cadaver in the apartment 5A, Ocean Club [alínea AR) of the undisputed facts].
7. The British police dogs “Eddie” and “Keela” detected human blood and cadaver in a vehicle rented by the claimants after the disappearance of MMC [alínea AS) of the undisputed facts].
There's no such thing as lies any more, remember? Just facts and true facts.
-
Is there any possibility that we could all be a teensy bit nicer to each other?
-
I don't regularly call people stupid, nasty or fools, but I would welcome a change of attitude from those who do.
-
I don't regularly call people stupid, nasty or fools, but I would welcome a change of attitude from those who do.
I included you in my heart felt message.
-
Is there any possibility that we could all be a teensy bit nicer to each other?
In order for that to happen everyone would need to behave civilly, which includes not making snide comments about each other or any of the individuals under discussion (eg the McCanns or Amaral) and answering questions put to each other honestly and openly, with all views respected and not mocked or pooh-poohed, and moderation handled fairly without favour. There would need to be empathy and understanding of each others' points of view and an acceptance that we may have got things wrong in the past, that we don't know everything now, and that we still have stuff to learn about this case and others. Let's be honest, none of that is ever likely to happen on here but happy to give it a try (even though it would make this place a dull read). You would have to permanently ban the troll first though as he isn't ever likely to change.
-
Yes, that's what John called it in the Thread Title - is he the last word on the subject then?
What else could be deduced from ID opening statement ?
-
What else could be deduced from ID opening statement ?
That they were suing for damage caused to them and the search for their daughter caused by the book and the video. I take it you believe it was a libel trial? If so why were none of the allegations in Amaral’s book examined to ascertain their truthfulness or otherwise?
-
I included you in my heart felt message.
Let's start with wiping out the personal insults.
-
Let's start with wiping out the personal insults.
You wouldn't have wanted to be left out would you?
-
So John has confirmed it's ok to accuse other posters of lying..I like to understand the rules.
First thing I would say is gunit once again shows her ignorance and continues to make a fool of herself. I suggests she looks in the dictionary to educate herself as to what the word actually means mmand she'll see once more she's wrong
-
You think you can continue to tell lies, when the truth is written down for all to see?
PROVED FACTS
Taking into account the matter considered undisputed in the selection of facts and the decision handed down in due course after producing the matter of evidence and discussing the case, the following facts are demonstrated :
1. The claimants KM and GM are married to each other
2. The claimant Madeleine Beth McCann was born on the 12.05.2003 and is the daughter of the claimants Kate and Gerry McCann
3. The claimant Sean McCann was born on the 01.02.2005 and is the son of the claimants Kate and Gerry McCann
4. The claimant Amelie McCann was born on the 01.02.2005 and is the daughter of the claimants Kate and Gerry McCann
5. The claimant Madeleine Beth McCann has been missing since the 3rd of May of 2007, and the criminal investigation n. 201/07.0GALGS was open by the Public Prosecutor of the Republic for the Portimao District.
6. The British police dogs “Eddie” and “Keela” detected human blood and cadaver in the apartment 5A, Ocean Club [alínea AR) of the undisputed facts].
7. The British police dogs “Eddie” and “Keela” detected human blood and cadaver in a vehicle rented by the claimants after the disappearance of MMC [alínea AS) of the undisputed facts].
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=6307.0
Seems like they misunderstood too; or just believed what the McCanns told them....
Lawyers for Kate and Gerry McCann argued that the Portuguese authorities had breached their right to respect for a private and family life in the way the courts there dealt with their libel claims against Goncalo Amaral.
https://news.sky.com/story/madeleine-mccanns-parents-lose-case-against-portuguese-ex-detective-goncalo-amaral-12701770
Kate and Gerry McCann appealed to the European Court of Human Rights over a Portuguese decision in their libel challenge over Goncalo Amaral's claims.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-62967119
Kate and Gerry McCann lost latest round of legal battle with Goncalo Amaral
Pair had sued Portuguese ex-cop for libel after he published a book suggesting they were involved in the disappearance of daughter Madeleine in 2007
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11230233/European-Court-Human-Rights-rules-against-parents-Madeleine-McCann-case-against-Portugal.html
You will notice I said Jan 15. The proven facts listed in the trial in Jan 15 did not reference the dogs whatsoever...they were mentioned in the proven facts in April 15 ...at the end of the trial. You shouldn't try and teach a crocodile to swim. Your descent into calling me a list only shows how rattled you are...it's funny to see how far you have fallen
-
I don't regularly call people stupid, nasty or fools, but I would welcome a change of attitude from those who do.
If anyone refers to me by any of those words I'm not bothered because I'm not....but as you say ...it bothers you
-
You will notice I said Jan 15. The proven facts listed in the trial in Jan 15 did not reference the dogs whatsoever...they were mentioned in the proven facts in April 15 ...at the end of the trial. You shouldn't try and teach a crocodile to swim. Your descent into calling me a list only shows how rattled you are...it's funny to see how far you have fallen
Do you have a link to the list of proven and unproven facts presented to the lawyers by Judge Maria Emília Melo e Castro on 21st January 2015?
-
If anyone refers to me by any of those words I'm not bothered because I'm not....but as you say ...it bothers you
I find it strange that people who do use those words can appeal for us all to be nice to each other.
-
Do you have a link to the list of proven and unproven facts presented to the lawyers by Judge Maria Emília Melo e Castro on 21st January 2015?
There's a whole subforum devoted to the so called Libel Trial on this very website, were you unaware of it? I believe you will find what you're looking for in there...
-
Do you have a link to the list of proven and unproven facts presented to the lawyers by Judge Maria Emília Melo e Castro on 21st January 2015?
It's on the forum... obviously once again you were criticising from a position of ignorance
-
It's on the forum... obviously once again you were criticising from a position of ignorance
That list is obviously the basis of the judgement which contained the contested articles of which the McCanns took Amaral to court over, the full judgement later on is that, full judgement. Your beef seems to be with the lawyers in allowing the proven fact containing the dogs alerts to be included so once again not that'll you answer how were they supposed to contest a judgement which went in their favour.
-
That list is obviously the basis of the judgement which contained the contested articles of which the McCanns took Amaral to court over, the full judgement later on is that, full judgement. Your beef seems to be with the lawyers in allowing the proven fact containing the dogs alerts to be included so once again not that'll you answer how were they supposed to contest a judgement which went in their favour.
I answer just about everything. The McCanns lawyers did argue that the dogs were unreliable...that the DNA was unreliable.
The McCanns did want a libel trial but the judge didn't and dodged the issue. She decided to go for Duty of Reserve ...I agree they were then in a difficult position.... accept and run the risk they did ...or...
-
I'm still trying to work out how the alerts became proven facts...which resulted in defeat at the ECHR. Did the fact they accepted the judgement result in the dog alerts becoming a proven fact as far as the Portuguese courts were concerned
-
" ... it did not appear that G.A. had been motivated by personal animosity towards the applicants." Information Note on the Court’s case-law 266
September 2022
It was assumed that Amaral was not motivated by personal animosity. I see no evidence to substantiate that opinion; then I'm not a learned judge 👀
-
I answer just about everything. The McCanns lawyers did argue that the dogs were unreliable...that the DNA was unreliable.
The McCanns did want a libel trial but the judge didn't and dodged the issue. She decided to go for Duty of Reserve ...I agree they were then in a difficult position.... accept and run the risk they did ...or...
Maybe the lawyers employed by the McCanns told them that would be the best course of action.
-
" ... it did not appear that G.A. had been motivated by personal animosity towards the applicants." Information Note on the Court’s case-law 266
September 2022
It was assumed that Amaral was not motivated by personal animosity. I see no evidence to substantiate that opinion; then I'm not a learned judge 👀
It's all opinion at the end of the day and unconscious bias is bound to play its part no matter how supposedly impartial the judge.
-
That list is obviously the basis of the judgement which contained the contested articles of which the McCanns took Amaral to court over, the full judgement later on is that, full judgement. Your beef seems to be with the lawyers in allowing the proven fact containing the dogs alerts to be included so once again not that'll you answer how were they supposed to contest a judgement which went in their favour.
Hey, you didn't answer my question from yesterday. We're under no obligation to reply to any question put to us, just ask G-Unit (though she may not reply - lol).
-
" ... it did not appear that G.A. had been motivated by personal animosity towards the applicants." Information Note on the Court’s case-law 266
September 2022
It was assumed that Amaral was not motivated by personal animosity. I see no evidence to substantiate that opinion; then I'm not a learned judge 👀
Have you seen any evidence to the contrary? Can you give any examples of Amaral's animus toward the McCanns?
-
" ... it did not appear that G.A. had been motivated by personal animosity towards the applicants." Information Note on the Court’s case-law 266
September 2022
It was assumed that Amaral was not motivated by personal animosity. I see no evidence to substantiate that opinion; then I'm not a learned judge
The McCanns were nothing to Gonçalo Amaral but suspects, in my view he had no personal animosity towards them until they attacked him legally in the courts. I guarantee the animosity went through the roof after that.
He wouldn't have risen to the level he did in the PJ unless he was a capable officer. He certainly had a number of high profile convictions under his belt by the time the McCann case came along.
You could say the McCann case destroyed his career.
-
The McCanns were nothing to Gonçalo Amaral but suspects, in my view he had no personal animosity towards them until they attacked him legally in the courts. I guarantee the animosity went through the roof after that.
He wouldn't have risen to the level he did in the PJ unless he was a capable officer. He certainly had a number of high profile convictions under his belt by the time the McCann case came along.
You could say the McCann case destroyed his career.
Which happened before he published his book, hence the animosity.
-
The McCanns were nothing to Gonçalo Amaral but suspects, in my view he had no personal animosity towards them until they attacked him legally in the courts. I guarantee the animosity went through the roof after that.
He wouldn't have risen to the level he did in the PJ unless he was a capable officer. He certainly had a number of high profile convictions under his belt by the time the McCann case came along.
You could say the McCann case destroyed his career.
My opinion ~ Amaral has evidenced his his animus towards the McCanns by his incapability of mentioning their names without traducing them in the process.
One addition to Amaral's high profile conviction rate - the Cipriano case, for which he was eventually awarded a criminal conviction for perjury - could explain his visceral hatred of the McCanns. They thwarted the tried and tested methods demonstrated by him and Cristovao when dealing with investigation of missing children cases.
Both were thugs who needed no assistance from anyone in destroying their careers as they and their associates managed to do that perfectly well on their own.
-
Which happened before he published his book, hence the animosity.
In his first interview after the ECHR verdict was announced, Amaral used the opportunity to libel the McCanns with the same accusations he made in 2007 and at every opportunity during the intervening years since.
-
My opinion ~ Amaral has evidenced his his animus towards the McCanns by his incapability of mentioning their names without traducing them in the process.
One addition to Amaral's high profile conviction rate - the Cipriano case, for which he was eventually awarded a criminal conviction for perjury - could explain his visceral hatred of the McCanns. They thwarted the tried and tested methods demonstrated by him and Cristovao when dealing with investigation of missing children cases.
Both were thugs who needed no assistance from anyone in destroying their careers as they and their associates managed to do that perfectly well on their own.
This is true and has always been my opinion.
-
The McCanns were nothing to Gonçalo Amaral but suspects, in my view he had no personal animosity towards them until they attacked him legally in the courts. I guarantee the animosity went through the roof after that.
He wouldn't have risen to the level he did in the PJ unless he was a capable officer. He certainly had a number of high profile convictions under his belt by the time the McCann case came along.
You could say the McCann case destroyed his career.
What were these high profile convictions..He totally misunderstood the evidence in the McCann case...that's a provable fact.
I wonder how many of his successful convictions involved beating a confession out of suspects
..
-
This is true and has always been my opinion.
I believe that it is irrefutable that Amaral viewed and used Madeleine McCann as a cash cow after botching the inquiry into her disappearance which ultimately ensured the abandonment of even a pretence of looking for her with the archiving of the process.
Upholding the finding that this anonymous couple whose media exposure was as a direct result of what is described in law as "the incident" resulted in them becoming "public figures" whose "notoriety" made them and their family fair game as "they had inevitably and knowingly laid themselves open to close scrutiny of their every word and deed." https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng#{%22itemid%22:[%22002-13798%22]}
To me that is illogical ~ unless someone can explain alternatives to how one is supposed to publicise the search for a missing person (that is inclusive of the fact a person is missing) without recourse to the media.
-
I believe that it is irrefutable that Amaral viewed and used Madeleine McCann as a cash cow after botching the inquiry into her disappearance which ultimately ensured the abandonment of even a pretence of looking for her with the archiving of the process.
Upholding the finding that this anonymous couple whose media exposure was as a direct result of what is described in law as "the incident" resulted in them becoming "public figures" whose "notoriety" made them and their family fair game as "they had inevitably and knowingly laid themselves open to close scrutiny of their every word and deed." https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng#{%22itemid%22:[%22002-13798%22]}
To me that is illogical ~ unless someone can explain alternatives to how one is supposed to publicise the search for a missing person (that is inclusive of the fact a person is missing) without recourse to the media.
Sadly, imo, I think the McCanns were seen, not least in the eyes of Amaral & PJ, to be using the media to promote Madeleine's disappearance only as abduction almost from the beginning. Rightly or wrongly, I think the courts considered Amaral's opinion of events, via his book based on PJ files, carried equal weight in the absence of proven truth.
The McCanns had little choice other than to use the media if they were to stand any chance of finding Madeleine. We are fully aware of the legal restrictions placed on PJ in relation to media and secrecy but many people, including the McCanns, found ways to circumvent both this and libel laws irrespective of the nature of their opinions.
Having followed Nicola Bulley's case it's apparent what harm publicity and free speech can be done to a victim, their family and the police personnel who have the unenviable task of investigating someone's disappearance. Words shouldn't be more important than actions but we seem to be moving towards a society in which there are ever-increasing repercussions for expressing our viewpoint.
-
The claim that the dog alerted to cadaver odour is alie.
according to the PJ this was the main evidence against the mcCanns
so..
The case against the mccanns was based on a lie
Amarals book was based on a lie
the ECHR verdict was based on a lie
and gunit calls me a liar...but as its based on her ignorance its of no importance...and makes her a liar
-
I believe that it is irrefutable that Amaral viewed and used Madeleine McCann as a cash cow after botching the inquiry into her disappearance which ultimately ensured the abandonment of even a pretence of looking for her with the archiving of the process.
Upholding the finding that this anonymous couple whose media exposure was as a direct result of what is described in law as "the incident" resulted in them becoming "public figures" whose "notoriety" made them and their family fair game as "they had inevitably and knowingly laid themselves open to close scrutiny of their every word and deed." https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng#{%22itemid%22:[%22002-13798%22]}
To me that is illogical ~ unless someone can explain alternatives to how one is supposed to publicise the search for a missing person (that is inclusive of the fact a person is missing) without recourse to the media.
The ECHR judges, just like the Portuguese ones, understood why the McCanns opted to become public figures. Whatever their motives were, it was still a fact that they did so and that had consequences.
-
The claim that the dog alerted to cadaver odour is alie.
according to the PJ this was the main evidence against the mcCanns
so..
The case against the mccanns was based on a lie
Amarals book was based on a lie
the ECHR verdict was based on a lie
and gunit calls me a liar...but as its based on her ignorance its of no importance...and makes her a liar
The above 'lies' are a matter of your personal opinion. I said you lied about the content of the first judgement and that was true, as my cites showed.
-
Oh Happy Days. And it's only Saturday.
-
The claim that the dog alerted to cadaver odour is alie.
according to the PJ this was the main evidence against the mcCanns
so..
The case against the mccanns was based on a lie
Amarals book was based on a lie
the ECHR verdict was based on a lie
and gunit calls me a liar...but as its based on her ignorance its of no importance...and makes her a liar
You say the dog alerts were the main evidence against the McCanns. So according to you, there was other lesser evidence against the McCanns. Right?
Why is it then that you can get away with saying this, yet whenever I correct Eleanor & Brietta, when they claim there was no evidence at all against the McCanns, I get warning points? It doesn't make sense to me.
-
The above 'lies' are a matter of your personal opinion. I said you lied about the content of the first judgement and that was true, as my cites showed.
.
The above lies are proven..as are your lies. I told no lies..the truth is you don't understand the meaning of the word liar. You do understand how to ruin a forum by acting like a spoilt child.lol
-
Oh Happy Days. And it's only Saturday.
Should start on a Sunday really.
https://youtu.be/slvGKU7HF6M
-
The claim that the dog alerted to cadaver odour is alie.
according to the PJ this was the main evidence against the mcCanns
so..
The case against the mccanns was based on a lie
Amarals book was based on a lie
the ECHR verdict was based on a lie
and gunit calls me a liar...but as its based on her ignorance its of no importance...and makes her a liar
Bolded bit,its not, its not proven they alerted to cadaver, boy wouldn't it be a surprise if Wolters comes back and says Madeleine was killed in 5a, he's yet to reveal where he thinks Madeleine was killed.
But back to the ECHR what was it the McCanns took the case to them over, you maintained article 10, this was never mentioned.
-
Should start on a Sunday really.
https://youtu.be/slvGKU7HF6M
If only.
-
Bolded bit,its not, its not proven they alerted to cadaver, boy wouldn't it be a surprise if Wolters comes back and says Madeleine was killed in 5a, he's yet to reveal where he thinks Madeleine was killed.
But back to the ECHR what was it the McCanns took the case to them over, you maintained article 10, this was never mentioned.
your a liar....I said article 8...stop lying
-
your a liar....I said article 8...stop lying
Watcha Billy, now article 8 was a right to private and family life, how was this judgement based on a lie ?
Conclusion(s)
No violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8 - Positive obligations
Article 8-1 - Respect for private life)
-
If only.
Walk away from which does not make you happy, simples.
-
I see its fully updated now.
(https://i.imgur.com/MOoiPy3.png)
-
Watcha Billy, now article 8 was a right to private and family life, how was this judgement based on a lie ?
Conclusion(s)
No violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8 - Positive obligations
Article 8-1 - Respect for private life)
do I really have to expalin everything to you...article 8 covers defamation....have another read
-
your a liar....I said article 8...stop lying
I knew you brought article 10 into it.
the case will decide whether what amaral said was backed by evidence ....thats how the balance between 8 and 10 is decided
-
do I really have to expalin everything to you...article 8 covers defamation....have another read
Go on then.
https://www.echr.coe.int/documents/guide_art_8_eng.pdf
-
Go on then.
https://www.echr.coe.int/documents/guide_art_8_eng.pdf
its there section 185..
2. Protection of individual reputation; defamation 185. Reputation is protected by Article 8 of the Convention as part of the right to respect for private life (Axel Springer AG v. Germany [GC], 2012, § 83; Chauvy and Others v. France, 2004, § 70; Pfeifer v. Austria, § 35; Petrina v. Romania, § 28; Polanco Torres and Movilla Polanco v. Spain, § 40
-
its there section 185..
2. Protection of individual reputation; defamation 185. Reputation is protected by Article 8 of the Convention as part of the right to respect for private life (Axel Springer AG v. Germany [GC], 2012, § 83; Chauvy and Others v. France, 2004, § 70; Pfeifer v. Austria, § 35; Petrina v. Romania, § 28; Polanco Torres and Movilla Polanco v. Spain, § 40
186,. In order for Article 8 to come into play, an attack on a person’s reputation must attain a certain
level of seriousness and be made in a manner causing prejudice to personal enjoyment of the right
to respect for private life
So the ECHR didn't see any thing untoward.
So back to the judgement which concluded last year, what lie was it based upon.
-
186,. In order for Article 8 to come into play, an attack on a person’s reputation must attain a certain
level of seriousness and be made in a manner causing prejudice to personal enjoyment of the right
to respect for private life
So the ECHR didn't see any thing untoward.
So back to the judgement which concluded last year, what lie was it based upon.
The lie that the dogs detected cadaver odour..they may or may not have but it's a lie to claim it as a fact. It's not true to claim the ECHR found no violation of article 8..
-
The lie that the dogs detected cadaver odour..they may or may not have but it's a lie to claim it as a fact. It's not true to claim the ECHR found no violation of article 8..
No judge claimed it was true. The claim was that it was true that it was written in the PJ's investigation files.
-
No judge claimed it was true. The claim was that it was true that it was written in the PJ's investigation files.
Stop telling lies...it's listed as a proven fact
Where was it proven
-
Stop telling lies...it's listed as a proven fact
Where was it proven
It's been proved that you don't understand what the judge meant by a 'proven fact'.
-
It's been proved that you don't understand what the judge meant by a 'proven fact'.
Liar
-
The lie that the dogs detected cadaver odour..they may or may not have but it's a lie to claim it as a fact. It's not true to claim the ECHR found no violation of article 8..
What does no violation mean in Mr Gray land then.
Conclusion(s)
No violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8 - Positive obligations
Article 8-1 - Respect for private life)
-
Sadly, imo, I think the McCanns were seen, not least in the eyes of Amaral & PJ, to be using the media to promote Madeleine's disappearance only as abduction almost from the beginning. Rightly or wrongly, I think the courts considered Amaral's opinion of events, via his book based on PJ files, carried equal weight in the absence of proven truth.
The McCanns had little choice other than to use the media if they were to stand any chance of finding Madeleine. We are fully aware of the legal restrictions placed on PJ in relation to media and secrecy but many people, including the McCanns, found ways to circumvent both this and libel laws irrespective of the nature of their opinions.
Having followed Nicola Bulley's case it's apparent what harm publicity and free speech can be done to a victim, their family and the police personnel who have the unenviable task of investigating someone's disappearance. Words shouldn't be more important than actions but we seem to be moving towards a society in which there are ever-increasing repercussions for expressing our viewpoint.
"... we seem to be moving towards a society in which there are ever-increasing repercussions for expressing our viewpoint."
Ask Gary Linekar about that one 🙄 Interestingly enough, even the ECHR is now making an appearance in the wider issues of the debate.
-
Liar
What a silly answer. Gerry McCann said the dogs 'never alerted to any blood in the car and they never alerted to cadaver odour'
The judge was quite clear in her reply. 'We are not here to ascertain that'
It's obvious that by Proven Facts the judge didn't mean that those facts were true, therefore.
-
Sadly, imo, I think the McCanns were seen, not least in the eyes of Amaral & PJ, to be using the media to promote Madeleine's disappearance only as abduction almost from the beginning. Rightly or wrongly, I think the courts considered Amaral's opinion of events, via his book based on PJ files, carried equal weight in the absence of proven truth.
The McCanns had little choice other than to use the media if they were to stand any chance of finding Madeleine. We are fully aware of the legal restrictions placed on PJ in relation to media and secrecy but many people, including the McCanns, found ways to circumvent both this and libel laws irrespective of the nature of their opinions.
Having followed Nicola Bulley's case it's apparent what harm publicity and free speech can be done to a victim, their family and the police personnel who have the unenviable task of investigating someone's disappearance. Words shouldn't be more important than actions but we seem to be moving towards a society in which there are ever-increasing repercussions for expressing our viewpoint.
Friday 4th May 2007 'Please, if you have Madeleine, let her come home...' said Gerry McCann in a media appeal. He made it about abduction immediately and he used the media to spread his opinion.
-
"... we seem to be moving towards a society in which there are ever-increasing repercussions for expressing our viewpoint."
Ask Gary Linekar about that one 🙄 Interestingly enough, even the ECHR is now making an appearance in the wider issues of the debate.
I used to like him as a footballer, now I hate him all round, because I couldn't disagree more with his political leaning. What's more, he likes to seem holier than thou, but in reality, he advertised Walkers crisps for years, disgustingly unhealthy junk food. I dread to think how many people have died from high cholesterol & obesity because of him.
-
Sadly, imo, I think the McCanns were seen, not least in the eyes of Amaral & PJ, to be using the media to promote Madeleine's disappearance only as abduction almost from the beginning. Rightly or wrongly, I think the courts considered Amaral's opinion of events, via his book based on PJ files, carried equal weight in the absence of proven truth.
The McCanns had little choice other than to use the media if they were to stand any chance of finding Madeleine. We are fully aware of the legal restrictions placed on PJ in relation to media and secrecy but many people, including the McCanns, found ways to circumvent both this and libel laws irrespective of the nature of their opinions.
Having followed Nicola Bulley's case it's apparent what harm publicity and free speech can be done to a victim, their family and the police personnel who have the unenviable task of investigating someone's disappearance. Words shouldn't be more important than actions but we seem to be moving towards a society in which there are ever-increasing repercussions for expressing our viewpoint.
Despite the alleged secrecy of Portuguese investigation the McCanns had the worst possible press foisted upon them right from the word “Go!”. All of which had an impact because the gossip emanated from impeccable sources within the investigation all of which was designed to present the McCanns and their friends in the worst possible light.
To me, whatever thoughts Amaral and the PJ had were not for publication in the public domain – in the first instance that was not only a breach of professionalism, it was a breach in the law.
Amaral's job was not to be judge and jury - his job was to find out what happened using evidence and not his fertile but badly directed imagination.
So basically the McCanns did not have the protection of Portuguese law in the beginning which resulted in them ultimately not having the protection of the ECHR.
-
Despite the alleged secrecy of Portuguese investigation the McCanns had the worst possible press foisted upon them right from the word “Go!”. All of which had an impact because the gossip emanated from impeccable sources within the investigation all of which was designed to present the McCanns and their friends in the worst possible light.
To me, whatever thoughts Amaral and the PJ had were not for publication in the public domain – in the first instance that was not only a breach of professionalism, it was a breach in the law.
Amaral's job was not to be judge and jury - his job was to find out what happened using evidence and not his fertile but badly directed imagination.
So basically the McCanns did not have the protection of Portuguese law in the beginning which resulted in them ultimately not having the protection of the ECHR.
Perhaps if Maddie had been given the protection of her parents, maybe all of the above could have been avoided.
-
Sadly, imo, I think the McCanns were seen, not least in the eyes of Amaral & PJ, to be using the media to promote Madeleine's disappearance only as abduction almost from the beginning. Rightly or wrongly, I think the courts considered Amaral's opinion of events, via his book based on PJ files, carried equal weight in the absence of proven truth.
The McCanns had little choice other than to use the media if they were to stand any chance of finding Madeleine. We are fully aware of the legal restrictions placed on PJ in relation to media and secrecy but many people, including the McCanns, found ways to circumvent both this and libel laws irrespective of the nature of their opinions.
Having followed Nicola Bulley's case it's apparent what harm publicity and free speech can be done to a victim, their family and the police personnel who have the unenviable task of investigating someone's disappearance. Words shouldn't be more important than actions but we seem to be moving towards a society in which there are ever-increasing repercussions for expressing our viewpoint.
The thing is that Portuguese law did allow the use of the media in particular circumstances ~ one of which was in the case of a missing child.
Amaral knew this. In fact he sought the permissions to release information about Madeleine. That could probably be classed as a "proven fact" which is recorded in the files.
-
What does no violation mean in Mr Gray land then.
Conclusion(s)
No violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8 - Positive obligations
Article 8-1 - Respect for private life)
You've taken it out of context....Could you post it in context....accusing someone of a criminal act is libel per se.
there was neevr any question Amarals claims were not defamatory....even in the SC judgement
-
The ECHR judges, just like the Portuguese ones, understood why the McCanns opted to become public figures. Whatever their motives were, it was still a fact that they did so and that had consequences.
What an insulting nonsense!
The McCanns did not "opt to become public figures" or anything of the sort.
Parents of missing children or missing people opt only to have their missing relative looked for!
-
Friday 4th May 2007 'Please, if you have Madeleine, let her come home...' said Gerry McCann in a media appeal. He made it about abduction immediately and he used the media to spread his opinion.
Just another absurd post illustrating how abandoned and alone the family of a missing child were in the search for that top priority in a missing child case - INFORMATION!
When have you ever seen the broken parents of a missing child anywhere in the world reduced to desperation of standing in the dark using torchlight to make their heart rending appeal.
The police were not helping or giving advice as they should have been. You really downplay as much as it is humanly possible to do so the absolutely abominable treatment meted out to the McCanns at the worst time of their lives.
Just an aside - the parallels with the Cipriano case are uncanny. Joana's mum was criticised for having flyers made and publicising her missing child too. Seems to have been a Portugeuse thing of the time.
-
Friday 4th May 2007 'Please, if you have Madeleine, let her come home...' said Gerry McCann in a media appeal. He made it about abduction immediately and he used the media to spread his opinion.
As do most parents of missing children - so what?
-
What an insulting nonsense!
The McCanns did not "opt to become public figures" or anything of the sort.
Parents of missing children or missing people opt only to have their missing relative looked for!
Can you imagine if the McCanns had shunned the media instead? As if doing so would have elevated them in the eyes of their detractors, instead it would simply have added even more fuel to the fire. Basically the McCanns can do no right as far as these armchair critics are concerned.
-
Just another absurd post illustrating how abandoned and alone the family of a missing child were in the search for that top priority in a missing child case - INFORMATION!
When have you ever seen the broken parents of a missing child anywhere in the world reduced to desperation of standing in the dark using torchlight to make their heart rending appeal.
The police were not helping or giving advice as they should have been. You really downplay as much as it is humanly possible to do so the absolutely abominable treatment meted out to the McCanns at the worst time of their lives.
Just an aside - the parallels with the Cipriano case are uncanny. Joana's mum was criticised for having flyers made and publicising her missing child too. Seems to have been a Portugeuse thing of the time.
also a proven fact that joannas blood was found in the fridge...when it wasnt
Can you imagine the kerfuffle if Wolters claimed it was a proven fact CB used his phone outside the OC on the evening of the abduction....
-
Can you imagine if the McCanns had shunned the media instead? As if doing so would have elevated them in the eyes of their detractors, instead it would simply have added even more fuel to the fire. Basically the McCanns can do no right as far as these armchair critics are concerned.
its a proven fact that CB came to be the prime suspect because of a public appea by the mccanns
-
Just another absurd post illustrating how abandoned and alone the family of a missing child were in the search for that top priority in a missing child case - INFORMATION!
When have you ever seen the broken parents of a missing child anywhere in the world reduced to desperation of standing in the dark using torchlight to make their heart rending appeal.
The police were not helping or giving advice as they should have been. You really downplay as much as it is humanly possible to do so the absolutely abominable treatment meted out to the McCanns at the worst time of their lives.
Just an aside - the parallels with the Cipriano case are uncanny. Joana's mum was criticised for having flyers made and publicising her missing child too. Seems to have been a Portugeuse thing of the time.
I didn't find their performance at all convincing myself.
-
Can you imagine if the McCanns had shunned the media instead? As if doing so would have elevated them in the eyes of their detractors, instead it would simply have added even more fuel to the fire. Basically the McCanns can do no right as far as these armchair critics are concerned.
Well, they were wrong to pursue Amaral through the courts certainly.
-
its a proven fact that CB came to be the prime suspect because of a public appea by the mccanns
Which pubic appea was that?
-
Sadly, imo, I think the McCanns were seen, not least in the eyes of Amaral & PJ, to be using the media to promote Madeleine's disappearance only as abduction almost from the beginning. Rightly or wrongly, I think the courts considered Amaral's opinion of events, via his book based on PJ files, carried equal weight in the absence of proven truth.
The McCanns had little choice other than to use the media if they were to stand any chance of finding Madeleine. We are fully aware of the legal restrictions placed on PJ in relation to media and secrecy but many people, including the McCanns, found ways to circumvent both this and libel laws irrespective of the nature of their opinions.
Having followed Nicola Bulley's case it's apparent what harm publicity and free speech can be done to a victim, their family and the police personnel who have the unenviable task of investigating someone's disappearance. Words shouldn't be more important than actions but we seem to be moving towards a society in which there are ever-increasing repercussions for expressing our viewpoint.
Of course Nicola Bulley's partner put in a wholly unconvincing appeal for her to come home according to some of the Armchair Defectives I have read online. In fact there are still some numpties who cling to the hope that he was somehow involved despite the complete absence of evidence to support this idiotic theory and the fact that all the evidence points to Nicola getting into the river herself. Some people always like to think they know better than anyone else and will happily reveal themselves as the nasty, spiteful idiots they are online (just so long as they can remain anonymous of course).
-
I used to like him as a footballer, now I hate him all round, because I couldn't disagree more with his political leaning. What's more, he likes to seem holier than thou, but in reality, he advertised Walkers crisps for years, disgustingly unhealthy junk food. I dread to think how many people have died from high cholesterol & obesity because of him.
He won the golden boot in Mexico 1986, thats it, how that qualifies to be a mouth piece who knows.
-
DBM
-
He won the golden boot in Mexico 1986, thats it, how that qualifies to be a mouth piece who knows.
He also shat his shorts during World Cup '90.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9t_8pfbCH-4
-
What a silly answer. Gerry McCann said the dogs 'never alerted to any blood in the car and they never alerted to cadaver odour'
The judge was quite clear in her reply. 'We are not here to ascertain that'
It's obvious that by Proven Facts the judge didn't mean that those facts were true, therefore.
What do you think anyone who reads..proven facts..think they are.
-
He also shat his shorts during World Cup '90.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9t_8pfbCH-4
...and that's not even defecation of character.
(Sorry, I've always wanted to write defecation of character.)
-
What do you think anyone who reads..proven facts..think they are.
Well they need to understand what the judge meant. Her definition is what matters, not that of a person with no knowledge of Portuguese legal terms.
-
Well they need to understand what the judge meant. Her definition is what matters, not that of a person with no knowledge of Portuguese legal terms.
You seem to think you know it all but you don't. You think your opinion is fact.
So...explain..what does the term proven facts mean in Portugal..enlighten us all
-
I used to like him as a footballer, now I hate him all round, because I couldn't disagree more with his political leaning. What's more, he likes to seem holier than thou, but in reality, he advertised Walkers crisps for years, disgustingly unhealthy junk food. I dread to think how many people have died from high cholesterol & obesity because of him.
I tried a packet of the latest Lineker Log-flavoured... but they tasted bl@@dy awful.
-
You seem to think you know it all but you don't. You think your opinion is fact.
So...explain..what does the term proven facts mean in Portugal..enlighten us all
All I needed to show was that it doesn't mean facts which have been proved to be true, and the judge made that clear to Gerry McCann..
-
All I needed to show was that it doesn't mean facts which have been proved to be true, and the judge made that clear to Gerry McCann..
Total junk which shows you are lying...continually lying. That's nothing more than total BS
You simply make it up as you go along
You've merely said what it doesn't mean...so what does it mean
-
Total junk which shows you are lying...continually lying. That's nothing more than total BS
You simply make it up as you go along
You've merely said what it doesn't mean...so what does it mean
As you have either no intention or lack the ability to understand what the judge was saying, I see no point in trying to convince you.
-
As you have either no intention or lack the ability to understand what the judge was saying, I see no point in trying to convince you.
You don't have a clue. If you look at the reasoning by the judge in the cipriano case..Re the proven fact you might understand
-
You don't have a clue. If you look at the reasoning by the judge in the cipriano case..Re the proven fact you might understand
You can believe anything you like if you ignore the evidence against your belief.
-
You can believe anything you like if you ignore the evidence against your belief.
You would know all about that being someone who is quite content to ignore all the evidence that smoking causes great harm to human health.
-
You would know all about that being someone who is quite content to ignore all the evidence that smoking causes great harm to human health.
Something else that's misunderstood; cause and effect. Smoking increases the risk of developing certain health problems, but, as I said, it doesn't cause them.
-
Something else that's misunderstood; cause and effect. Smoking increases the risk of developing certain health problems, but, as I said, it doesn't cause them.
I agree with this. But then I smoke too much and I haven't got anything wrong with me. And you can convince yourself of anything if you really want to.
-
Something else that's misunderstood; cause and effect. Smoking increases the risk of developing certain health problems, but, as I said, it doesn't cause them.
The carcinogens in tobacco cause cancer..that's a 100% proven fact...only a fool would think otherwise
-
You would know all about that being someone who is quite content to ignore all the evidence that smoking causes great harm to human health.
Too true... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=69R0E_Rg_mQ (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=69R0E_Rg_mQ)
-
You can believe anything you like if you ignore the evidence against your belief.
even in Portugal a proven fact is a fact considered to be true
-
Too true... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=69R0E_Rg_mQ (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=69R0E_Rg_mQ)
Wot? I'm not watching that. I might learn something I don't want to know.
-
Something else that's misunderstood; cause and effect. Smoking increases the risk of developing certain health problems, but, as I said, it doesn't cause them.
You might want to tell Cancer Research UK that as they have a whole section of their website devoted to "causes of cancer"
https://www.cancerresearchuk.org/about-cancer/causes-of-cancer
Of course you don't believe anything causes cancer so pointless continuing this particular discussion.
-
Too true... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=69R0E_Rg_mQ (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=69R0E_Rg_mQ)
I mean if I sat in a room that was gradually filled with smoke I would probably start coughing, might begin to devlop breathing problems and eventually I might die of smoke inhalation. Would the smoke be the cause of my death, or would it just increase my chances of developing health problems and dying prematurely? It's a typical G-Unit semantic quibble.
-
And then of course there is the NHS opinion that smoking causes cancer, but what do they know? Better to listen to G-Unit than them, as she knows far more about everything, always.
https://www.nhs.uk/common-health-questions/lifestyle/what-are-the-health-risks-of-smoking/
"You can believe anything you like if you ignore the evidence against your belief" - G-Unit
-
even in Portugal a proven fact is a fact considered to be true
The true fact being that the information about the dogs was recorded in the case files.
-
The true fact being that the information about the dogs was recorded in the case files.
Absolutely stupid post. What evidence do you have to support that...none
-
And then of course there is the NHS opinion that smoking causes cancer, but what do they know? Better to listen to G-Unit than them, as she knows far more about everything, always.
https://www.nhs.uk/common-health-questions/lifestyle/what-are-the-health-risks-of-smoking/
"You can believe anything you like if you ignore the evidence against your belief" - G-Unit
Smoking kills, this is true. But, curious story. A friend of mine died by being run over by a bus. The strange thing was, he'd never smoked a bus in his whole life.
-
Absolutely stupid post. What evidence do you have to support that...none
Well we know the judge wasn't suggesting that the dogs did alert to cadaver and blood because she told Gerry McCann that they were 'not here to ascertain that'. ' We are not here to prove if the contents of the book are truthful or not' she added.
-
Well we know the judge wasn't suggesting that the dogs did alert to cadaver and blood because she told Gerry McCann that they were 'not here to ascertain that'. ' We are not here to prove if the contents of the book are truthful or not' she added.
Are you aware that in the summing up the McCann's lawyer spoke for 2 to 3 hours about the reliability of the dogs and dna.
At what stage did she say that..she decided to decide the case in the duty of reserve and avoid the conflict between free speech and reutatiin..on that basis the validity if the facts was not important. We also know that at the start if the trial the alerts were not part of the proven facts.
We know in the cioriano trual the judge supplied the reasoning to include the blood in fridge as part of the proven facts. How the alerts came to be considered priven facts has not been answered...you think it has but have supplied nothing to support your belief
-
Are you aware that in the summing up the McCann's lawyer spoke for 2 to 3 hours about the reliability of the dogs and dna.
At what stage did she say that..she decided to decide the case in the duty of reserve and avoid the conflict between free speech and reutatiin..on that basis the validity if the facts was not important. We also know that at the start if the trial the alerts were not part of the proven facts.
We know in the cioriano trual the judge supplied the reasoning to include the blood in fridge as part of the proven facts. How the alerts came to be considered priven facts has not been answered...you think it has but have supplied nothing to support your belief
The McCann's lawyer spoke for hours when? I don't know when the judge finalised her proven facts, but her interaction with Gerry McCann took place in July 2014. It was obviously preying on his mind.
In my opinion the judge went with the duty of reserve because of the total lack of evidence the McCanns supplied to support their case. Most of their allegations against Amaral were not proved.
-
The McCann's lawyer spoke for hours when? I don't know when the judge finalised her proven facts, but her interaction with Gerry McCann took place in July 2014. It was obviously preying on his mind.
In my opinion the judge went with the duty of reserve because of the total lack of evidence the McCanns supplied to support their case. Most of their allegations against Amaral were not proved.
It was proved categorically that Amaral had broken the law when he indulged in a verbal tirade against Kate and Gerry McCann in what he thought was an off the record leak of information fulminating against Kate and Gerry McCann.
Indeed it resulted in his sacking from the investigation. It really should have resulted in charges being laid for his flagrant breaking of Portuguese secrecy law ~ a situation ignored then when this and other obvious breaches were subsequently ignored by Portuguese judges and appeal court judges as ratified by the ECHR.
Why don't Portuguese police release more information to the media and the public?
All criminal cases in Portugal - and elsewhere in much of Europe - are governed by the law of judicial secrecy.
This means that once a criminal investigation is under way, police cannot reveal anything about that investigation, including any details about potential suspects.
Any leaks could jeopardise a trial.
The BBC's Alison Roberts, in the Algarve, explains that normally this secrecy is not an issue because the Portuguese media are used to it and know not to bother asking questions.
Problems can arise though, she says, as with information about Madeleine's clothing, when there is confusion about whether something is already in the public domain.
And if a detail has come from a different source - such as the family involved - can police then discuss it openly even if it falls under the secrecy law?
This grey area, our correspondent says, could help explain the second press conference held by police on Monday.
At the first media briefing on Saturday, the police may have felt they started to go down a road they shouldn't have - towards saying too much - Ms Roberts said.
Then in the second conference they tried to rein the situation back in, she added.
There has been surprise in some Portuguese quarters that police have even said as much as they have and there can be serious repercussions for breaking the secrecy law.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/6634283.stm
-
It was proved categorically that Amaral had broken the law when he indulged in a verbal tirade against Kate and Gerry McCann in what he thought was an off the record leak of information fulminating against Kate and Gerry McCann.
Indeed it resulted in his sacking from the investigation. It really should have resulted in charges being laid for his flagrant breaking of Portuguese secrecy law ~ a situation ignored then when this and other obvious breaches were subsequently ignored by Portuguese judges and appeal court judges as ratified by the ECHR.
Why don't Portuguese police release more information to the media and the public?
All criminal cases in Portugal - and elsewhere in much of Europe - are governed by the law of judicial secrecy.
This means that once a criminal investigation is under way, police cannot reveal anything about that investigation, including any details about potential suspects.
Any leaks could jeopardise a trial.
The BBC's Alison Roberts, in the Algarve, explains that normally this secrecy is not an issue because the Portuguese media are used to it and know not to bother asking questions.
Problems can arise though, she says, as with information about Madeleine's clothing, when there is confusion about whether something is already in the public domain.
And if a detail has come from a different source - such as the family involved - can police then discuss it openly even if it falls under the secrecy law?
This grey area, our correspondent says, could help explain the second press conference held by police on Monday.
At the first media briefing on Saturday, the police may have felt they started to go down a road they shouldn't have - towards saying too much - Ms Roberts said.
Then in the second conference they tried to rein the situation back in, she added.
There has been surprise in some Portuguese quarters that police have even said as much as they have and there can be serious repercussions for breaking the secrecy law.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/6634283.stm
As I recall, Amaral's 'verbal tirade' was aimed at the UK police, not at the McCanns. The incident you're referring to wasn't brought up in the libel trial so the judges were not able to discuss it.
-
As I recall, Amaral's 'verbal tirade' was aimed at the UK police, not at the McCanns. The incident you're referring to wasn't brought up in the libel trial so the judges were not able to discuss it.
Who is Goncalo Amaral?
Gonalo Amaral is a retired detective who led the initial hunt when three-year-old Madeleine McCann went missing from the Ocean Club holiday complex in Praia da Luz on May 3, 2007.
He was removed as head of the investigation after criticising British detectives and claiming they were only following leads the McCanns asked them to pursue.
Amaral has remained an outspoken critic of British police and the McCanns, and has repeatedly claimed Gerry and Kate killed their daughter.
He released a book and subsequent TV documentary called The Truth Of The Lie in which he cruelly alleged the McCanns faked Maddie's abduction to cover their tracks after she had been accidentally killed.
https://www.thescottishsun.co.uk/news/516734/goncalo-amaral-madeleine-mccann-kate-gerry-2/#:~:text=Gonalo%20Amaral%20is%20a%20retired%20detective%20who%20led,following%20leads%20the%20McCanns%20asked%20them%20to%20pursue.
The point I was making prior to your clumsy attempt at sidestepping it was that in his vindictive attempts to smear the McCanns and take the focus off the criminal investigation into Madeleine's kidnap ~ Goncalo Amaral broke Portuguese secrecy law for which offence he should have been prosecuted.
Apart from the rap over the knuckles of being sacked from the investigation he emerged from the situation the penalty for which if found guilty, included a jail sentence ~ he waltzed off scot-free at the time and subsequently many years down the line, at the ECHR..
The information which Amaral divulged included operation details of evidence which had been forwarded from Britain, so he really did break the law with a vengeance just for the breach to be ignored. I would say that qualifies as a true fact, strange it is ignored with posters such as yourself being at pains to deflect from Amaral's peccadillos throughout.
-
You can believe anything you like if you ignore the evidence against your belief.
I think that philosophy sums you up as a poster which in effect devalues everything you post.
-
Who is Goncalo Amaral?
Gonalo Amaral is a retired detective who led the initial hunt when three-year-old Madeleine McCann went missing from the Ocean Club holiday complex in Praia da Luz on May 3, 2007.
He was removed as head of the investigation after criticising British detectives and claiming they were only following leads the McCanns asked them to pursue.
Amaral has remained an outspoken critic of British police and the McCanns, and has repeatedly claimed Gerry and Kate killed their daughter.
He released a book and subsequent TV documentary called The Truth Of The Lie in which he cruelly alleged the McCanns faked Maddie's abduction to cover their tracks after she had been accidentally killed.
https://www.thescottishsun.co.uk/news/516734/goncalo-amaral-madeleine-mccann-kate-gerry-2/#:~:text=Gonalo%20Amaral%20is%20a%20retired%20detective%20who%20led,following%20leads%20the%20McCanns%20asked%20them%20to%20pursue.
The point I was making prior to your clumsy attempt at sidestepping it was that in his vindictive attempts to smear the McCanns and take the focus off the criminal investigation into Madeleine's kidnap ~ Goncalo Amaral broke Portuguese secrecy law for which offence he should have been prosecuted.
Apart from the rap over the knuckles of being sacked from the investigation he emerged from the situation the penalty for which if found guilty, included a jail sentence ~ he waltzed off scot-free at the time and subsequently many years down the line, at the ECHR..
The information which Amaral divulged included operation details of evidence which had been forwarded from Britain, so he really did break the law with a vengeance just for the breach to be ignored. I would say that qualifies as a true fact, strange it is ignored with posters such as yourself being at pains to deflect from Amaral's peccadillos throughout.
When has Amaral ever claimed the McCanns killed Maddie?
I don't remember reading that anywhere. Strange this was never mentioned to the ECHR.
-
You don't have a clue. If you look at the reasoning by the judge in the cipriano case..Re the proven fact you might understand
What as the Cipriano trial is do to with the ECHR ? and subsequent failure of the McCanns at said court.
-
I don't think there could be a more appropriate example to illustrate the reason the McCanns took legal action to safeguard their investigation and search for Madeleine.
As senior investigating officer Goncalo Amaral presided over a botched case in 2007 and showed his determination to interfere in today's German investigation.
This is surely one driven guy.
Gloating Portuguese cop says the McCanns 'are still suspects' in the disappearance of Madeleine hours after the family lose libel legal battle against his book- Kate and Gerry McCann lost latest round of legal battle with Goncalo Amaral
- Ex-police chief said the couple 'remain suspects' over Maddie's disappearance
- Pair had sued cop for libel after he published a book suggesting they were involved in the disappearance of daughter Madeleine in 2007
- Parents won the initial case but ruling was overturned by Portuguese judges in 2017, prompting them to appeal to the European Court of Human Rights
- European judges today ruled in Amaral's favour, opening door to another appeal
By NATALIA PENZA and NICK PISA FOR MAILONLINE
PUBLISHED: 16:47, 20 September 2022
The Portuguese ex-police chief who probed the disappearance of Madeleine McCann said her parents are 'still suspects' as he gloated over his court win today.
Goncalo Amaral laid into Gerry and Kate in a radio interview in his native country after learning they had lost the latest round of their libel battle against his 2008 book.
The couple had taken him to the European Court of Human Rights after years of litigation in his homeland over Truth of the Lie, which accused them of covering up Madeleine's 'accidental' death in their Praia da Luz holiday apartment in May 2007.
The McCanns reacted to their court defeat by admitting they were 'naturally disappointed' at the decision but insisting they had no regrets about pursuing their long and arduous legal battle.
They said it meant the focus was now 'rightly' on the search for Madeleine and her abductors.
Hours later, Amaral was on Portuguese radio, insisting: 'Today the court referred once again to an important question.
'The couple are suspects, were suspects and remain suspects. Nothing else happened to the contrary.'
Referring to prime suspect Christian Brueckner who Amaral has claimed in the past is a scapegoat, he added in an interview on Radio Renascenca: 'Thousands even millions of euros have been invested in recent years to create a false suspect.'
Amaral's comments came despite the McCanns having their 'arguido' status lifted by the Portuguese authorities in July 2008.
Portugal's Supreme Court said in 2017 in a previous ruling on the Amaral book that did not mean they had been cleared and did not equate to 'proof of innocence.'
But all new lines of inquiry in recent years, both in Portugal and the UK as well as in Germany where Brueckner is serving a seven-year prison sentence for raping an American pensioner, have excluded any responsibility of the parents.
The German was recently made an 'arguido' or suspect in Portugal.
Amaral, removed as head of the initial Policia Judiciaria inquiry which led to the finger being pointed at the McCanns, crowed after learning the latest court decision over his book had gone against the couple: 'This is a victory for Portuguese justice against those who do not want the discovery of the truth of the realisation of justice.
'So many times Portugal is defeated in the ECHR and today it emerged victorious.'
The McCanns won their initial libel case against Amaral but he appealed and Portuguese judges reversed the decision - prompting the McCanns to appeal to the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg.
European judges delivered their verdict today and rejected the appeal, giving the McCanns three months to decide whether to appeal again. A source close to the pair told MailOnline they are 'disappointed' and are reviewing their legal options.
CONTINUED
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11231591/Gloating-Portuguese-cop-says-McCanns-suspects-disappearance-Madeleine.html
The really odd thing about Amaral's obsessional vendetta to traduce the innocent parents of a missing child is his equally vehement defence of the convicted rapist and child molester suspect he has chosen to champion.
I've puzzled this, firm in the knowledge there has to be a reason behind that obduracy; maybe all will be revealed as time progresses.
-
I think Amaral knows what happened in both cases. But I doubt that Portugal will pursue this and I can't see any means by which this can be investigated outside of Portugal.
-
you really need to listen to someone who knows what they are talking about..thats me. i probably know more about the court and ECHR case than anyone else on any forum...including poulton...brown...the P resident......eevry one of them.
first the SC did not rule on whether the book was libellous....and the SC did noy say the mcCanns havent been proved innocece...yhey simply gave their opinion on the balance of rights re article 8 and 10....and they got it wrong and i can tell you why.
this case is all about amaral rights under articla 10 and the McCanns rights under article 8.
If you look at how the ECHR decide one of the major points is the veraciity of the claims ...in this case those made by amaral
The portuguese court made a mistake...even the court of the first instance...they said they were not there to consider the veracity of amarals claims..they would not let Gerry present his arguments re the dogs which would have shown amarals claims were not based on facts.....but on lies...thats contrary to the ECHRs stance...major error by portugal.
the mcCanns have quoted Springer vs Germnay where the ECHR ruked in favour of free speech...peter mac...who must be a bit thick on the CMOMM site says he cant understand why the Mcs have cited a case where Free speech was ruled more important....i understand...it sbecause the claims were true and proved in court.
so the ECHR will look at the evidence and see whether amaral was right to pronounce the mccanns guilty...the dogs etc...they will look at that and may even give their opinions on them. the archiving despatch said none of the evidence used to make the mccans guilty was confirmed..its in the files. so amaral is nmaking claims with no evidence to support them.
Based on all this I cannot see any way the ECHR will not find in the McCanns favour
Can Mr Gray explain where it all went wrong.
-
I don't think there could be a more appropriate example to illustrate the reason the McCanns took legal action to safeguard their investigation and search for Madeleine.
As senior investigating officer Goncalo Amaral presided over a botched case in 2007 and showed his determination to interfere in today's German investigation.
This is surely one driven guy.
Gloating Portuguese cop says the McCanns 'are still suspects' in the disappearance of Madeleine hours after the family lose libel legal battle against his book- Kate and Gerry McCann lost latest round of legal battle with Goncalo Amaral
- Ex-police chief said the couple 'remain suspects' over Maddie's disappearance
- Pair had sued cop for libel after he published a book suggesting they were involved in the disappearance of daughter Madeleine in 2007
- Parents won the initial case but ruling was overturned by Portuguese judges in 2017, prompting them to appeal to the European Court of Human Rights
- European judges today ruled in Amaral's favour, opening door to another appeal
By NATALIA PENZA and NICK PISA FOR MAILONLINE
PUBLISHED: 16:47, 20 September 2022
The Portuguese ex-police chief who probed the disappearance of Madeleine McCann said her parents are 'still suspects' as he gloated over his court win today.
Goncalo Amaral laid into Gerry and Kate in a radio interview in his native country after learning they had lost the latest round of their libel battle against his 2008 book.
The couple had taken him to the European Court of Human Rights after years of litigation in his homeland over Truth of the Lie, which accused them of covering up Madeleine's 'accidental' death in their Praia da Luz holiday apartment in May 2007.
The McCanns reacted to their court defeat by admitting they were 'naturally disappointed' at the decision but insisting they had no regrets about pursuing their long and arduous legal battle.
They said it meant the focus was now 'rightly' on the search for Madeleine and her abductors.
Hours later, Amaral was on Portuguese radio, insisting: 'Today the court referred once again to an important question.
'The couple are suspects, were suspects and remain suspects. Nothing else happened to the contrary.'
Referring to prime suspect Christian Brueckner who Amaral has claimed in the past is a scapegoat, he added in an interview on Radio Renascenca: 'Thousands even millions of euros have been invested in recent years to create a false suspect.'
Amaral's comments came despite the McCanns having their 'arguido' status lifted by the Portuguese authorities in July 2008.
Portugal's Supreme Court said in 2017 in a previous ruling on the Amaral book that did not mean they had been cleared and did not equate to 'proof of innocence.'
But all new lines of inquiry in recent years, both in Portugal and the UK as well as in Germany where Brueckner is serving a seven-year prison sentence for raping an American pensioner, have excluded any responsibility of the parents.
The German was recently made an 'arguido' or suspect in Portugal.
Amaral, removed as head of the initial Policia Judiciaria inquiry which led to the finger being pointed at the McCanns, crowed after learning the latest court decision over his book had gone against the couple: 'This is a victory for Portuguese justice against those who do not want the discovery of the truth of the realisation of justice.
'So many times Portugal is defeated in the ECHR and today it emerged victorious.'
The McCanns won their initial libel case against Amaral but he appealed and Portuguese judges reversed the decision - prompting the McCanns to appeal to the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg.
European judges delivered their verdict today and rejected the appeal, giving the McCanns three months to decide whether to appeal again. A source close to the pair told MailOnline they are 'disappointed' and are reviewing their legal options.
CONTINUED
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11231591/Gloating-Portuguese-cop-says-McCanns-suspects-disappearance-Madeleine.html
The really odd thing about Amaral's obsessional vendetta to traduce the innocent parents of a missing child is his equally vehement defence of the convicted rapist and child molester suspect he has chosen to champion.
I've puzzled this, firm in the knowledge there has to be a reason behind that obduracy; maybe all will be revealed as time progresses.
Has it ever occurred to you that the McCanns might not actually be the innocent parents of an abducted child? Have you ever considered that possibility at all? Me personally, I can't see any way that they can be entirely ruled out as potential suspects. I made a thread titled 'The evidence Madeleine was taken in a criminal act by a stranger' where I invited forum members to suggest what possible evidence of abduction there could be. It didn't gain much traction. Maybe have a think about why that is. You might just find the answer you seek. If you're objective about the matter.
-
I think Amaral knows what happened in both cases. But I doubt that Portugal will pursue this and I can't see any means by which this can be investigated outside of Portugal.
So do I.
-
Who is Goncalo Amaral?
Gonalo Amaral is a retired detective who led the initial hunt when three-year-old Madeleine McCann went missing from the Ocean Club holiday complex in Praia da Luz on May 3, 2007.
He was removed as head of the investigation after criticising British detectives and claiming they were only following leads the McCanns asked them to pursue.
Amaral has remained an outspoken critic of British police and the McCanns, and has repeatedly claimed Gerry and Kate killed their daughter.
He released a book and subsequent TV documentary called The Truth Of The Lie in which he cruelly alleged the McCanns faked Maddie's abduction to cover their tracks after she had been accidentally killed.
https://www.thescottishsun.co.uk/news/516734/goncalo-amaral-madeleine-mccann-kate-gerry-2/#:~:text=Gonalo%20Amaral%20is%20a%20retired%20detective%20who%20led,following%20leads%20the%20McCanns%20asked%20them%20to%20pursue.
The point I was making prior to your clumsy attempt at sidestepping it was that in his vindictive attempts to smear the McCanns and take the focus off the criminal investigation into Madeleine's kidnap ~ Goncalo Amaral broke Portuguese secrecy law for which offence he should have been prosecuted.
Apart from the rap over the knuckles of being sacked from the investigation he emerged from the situation the penalty for which if found guilty, included a jail sentence ~ he waltzed off scot-free at the time and subsequently many years down the line, at the ECHR..
The information which Amaral divulged included operation details of evidence which had been forwarded from Britain, so he really did break the law with a vengeance just for the breach to be ignored. I would say that qualifies as a true fact, strange it is ignored with posters such as yourself being at pains to deflect from Amaral's peccadillos throughout.
I'm not sure whether the Royal tip-off was forwarded to the PJ or not. It was certainly leaked to the UK press on 1st October 2007.
https://themaddiecasefiles.com/charles-gets-a-tip-off-daily-express-01-10-07-t15192.html#p210687
Not surprisingly, Portuguese newspaper Diário de Notícias asked Amaral to comment and he did.
None of that has anything to do with the Libel trial, of course.
-
Has it ever occurred to you that the McCanns might not actually be the innocent parents of an abducted child? Have you ever considered that possibility at all? Me personally, I can't see any way that they can be entirely ruled out as potential suspects. I made a thread titled 'The evidence Madeleine was taken in a criminal act by a stranger' where I invited forum members to suggest what possible evidence of abduction there could be. It didn't gain much traction. Maybe have a think about why that is. You might just find the answer you seek. If you're objective about the matter.
Those who rely on the tabloid press to form their opinions should maybe look at the actual evidence rather than sensationlist headines.
-
Those who rely on the tabloid press to form their opinions should maybe look at the actual evidence rather than sensationlist headines.
Can you actually get any more patronizing? We've all seen the same actual evidence that you've seen, and funnily enough so have the three police forces investigating a stranger abduction. In fact the police have actually got a far more complete picture of the evidence than you or I, so perhaps you should think about that, eh?
-
Can Mr Gray explain where it all went wrong.
Very easy..alerts to cadaver were treated as priven facts. If cadaver was present in 5a amaral had every right ti make his comments
-
Can you actually get any more patronizing? We've all seen the same actual evidence that you've seen, and funnily enough so have the three police forces investigating a stranger abduction. In fact the police have actually got a far more complete picture of the evidence than you or I, so perhaps you should think about that, eh?
Waaaaaah, appeal to authority.
....And tell me, how are the three expert investigative forces doing? Are they having much luck in proving Madeleine was taken in a criminal act by a stranger? No? Oh, how extraordinary. When one considers the sheer weight of abduction evidence they posses.
-
Very easy..alerts to cadaver were treated as priven facts. If cadaver was present in 5a amaral had every right ti make his comments
Amaral had the same right to speculate on the crime as the McCanns did, so long as he based his theory upon the contents of the investigation files.
-
Amaral had the same right to speculate on the crime as the McCanns did, so long as he based his theory upon the contents of the investigation files.
Amarars theory was based on lies..that's fact not opinion
-
Amarars theory was based on lies..that's fact not opinion
Had the McCanns gone down the criminal defamation route against Amaral in 2008 I believe the lies would have been scrutinised in court and the outcome rather different. However, the cost of that course of action could not have been borne by Madeleine's fund.
-
Had the McCanns gone down the criminal defamation route against Amaral in 2008 I believe the lies would have been scrutinised in court and the outcome rather different. However, the cost of that course of action could not have been borne by Madeleine's fund.
'
Do you mean they would have had to spend their own money, rather than someone else's?
-
Amarars theory was based on lies..that's fact not opinion
Yes, Amarar was quite wrong. No inference can be drawn from the cadaver dog alerts in the apartment where the child disappeared from. Not even when taken in conjunction with the evidence from the witness who saw the father carrying the inert child away from scene. Or with the child's mother having clammed up under scrutiny. All of that must be disregarded. This was an abduction, so it was. Really, it was, Wolters can prove it.
-
Had the McCanns gone down the criminal defamation route against Amaral in 2008 I believe the lies would have been scrutinised in court and the outcome rather different. However, the cost of that course of action could not have been borne by Madeleine's fund.
In the cipriano case the proven facts included joannas blood being found in the fridge even though it wasn't tested.
The judge commented that as the fridge had been cleaned with bleach it couldn't be tested and as there was nothing to contradict it. ...the blood evidence could be included in proven facts. I see no reason to think the logic was any different in the mccann case
-
Ricardo Afonso spent almost two hours talking about numbers, comparing the Gonçalo Amaral book with selected bits of the case files and trying to discredit the author, the PJ and the dogs, while insisting that the British police didn't agree with the PJ's conclusions that led to the McCanns being made arguidos.
.........
He also attacked the Smiths' credibility and questioned why they were seen as credible by the investigation while Jane Tanner was discredited.
https://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=5786.0
I wonder how much input the McCanns gave their lawyers in that matter?
-
'
Do you mean they would have had to spend their own money, rather than someone else's?
Yes. The lawsuit would have been a personal issue rather than one which involved finding Madeleine.
The only silver lining in the ECHR verdict imo is that Amaral has been legally allowed to profit from Madeleine's disappearance by Portugal and a higher court. Should it ever come to light that he had guilty knowledge of Brueckner's involvement whilst he was co-ordinator of PJ investigation and Bruckner is subsequently convicted of murder, there can be no ambiguity in the State's role or responsibility for police corruption in public office.
-
Yes. The lawsuit would have been a personal issue rather than one which involved finding Madeleine.
The only silver lining in the ECHR verdict imo is that Amaral has been legally allowed to profit from Madeleine's disappearance by Portugal and a higher court. Should it ever come to light that he had guilty knowledge of Brueckner's involvement whilst he was co-ordinator of PJ investigation and Bruckner is subsequently convicted of murder, there can be no ambiguity in the State's role or responsibility for police corruption in public office.
I wouldn't recommend holding your breath whilst waiting for that to happen.
-
Amarars theory was based on lies..that's fact not opinion
Amaral saw the dogs alert as evidence, how was this a lie.
-
Amaral saw the dogs alert as evidence, how was this a lie.
The dogs did not attribute their own alerts to a specific victim or offender but Amaral did.
-
I think Amaral knows what happened in both cases. But I doubt that Portugal will pursue this and I can't see any means by which this can be investigated outside of Portugal.
I think it has become increasingly obvious that there was and still is a particular attitude in Portugal pertaining to crimes perpetrated against women and children. I think Leonor, Joana, Kate, Madeleine and Jacinta are cases in point.
Australian woman’s death in Algarve questioned by family
-28th October 2010
Family members of an Australian woman who was found dead at her home in São Brás de Alportel in March 2008 are claiming that she was murdered despite Portuguese police ruling that she had committed suicide.
The body of Jacinta Rees was found by a teenage neighbour at around 9.30am and, at the time, police told the Algarve Resident: “There were traces of blood found at the house, however there is no suspicion of murder.”
The spokesman for the GNR continued: “The PJ police investigated the property and did not find any evidence of robbery or any other crime.”
At the time of the incident, the police spokesman said that Jacinta Rees could have been “psychologically impaired” due to the fact that she had been in a car accident two days earlier and treated at Beja Hospital.
According to Australian newspaper Herald Sun, a new autopsy by Australian authorities concluded that Jacinta Rees died from a “blunt force injury to the left side of the head. The injury pattern with trauma to both head and the left arm raises serious concerns. Further investigations are being undertaken via the Victorian Police Department’s homicide squad.”
https://www.portugalresident.com/australian-womans-death-in-algarve-questioned-by-family/
Of course Portugal won't ever investigate Amaral not even when he throws his weight behind the paedophile and rapist suspect in Madeleine's murder suggesting he's a patsy.
What would be the point anyway. Even were he to be convicted of something, the appeal courts would iron it all out for him. Can't help but wonder why his appeal against perjury resulting from the torture trial hit the skids when even Cristivao walked away from that one without blemish to his name.
-
The dogs did not attribute their own alerts to a specific victim or offender but Amaral did.
There was only one child/victim reported missing from 5a, what other victim could there have been, once again Amaral saw the dog alerts as evidence, how was this a lie.
-
There was only one child/victim reported missing from 5a, what other victim could there have been, once again Amaral saw the dog alerts as evidence, how was this a lie.
Look at it this way: is it a FACT that the dogs alerted to Madeleine's corpse?
-
Amaral saw the dogs alert as evidence, how was this a lie.
Amaral was told the alerts were not evidence..the lie was to say the alert was to cadaver odour
-
I think it has become increasingly obvious that there was and still is a particular attitude in Portugal pertaining to crimes perpetrated against women and children. I think Leonor, Joana, Kate, Madeleine and Jacinta are cases in point.
Australian woman’s death in Algarve questioned by family
-28th October 2010
Family members of an Australian woman who was found dead at her home in São Brás de Alportel in March 2008 are claiming that she was murdered despite Portuguese police ruling that she had committed suicide.
The body of Jacinta Rees was found by a teenage neighbour at around 9.30am and, at the time, police told the Algarve Resident: “There were traces of blood found at the house, however there is no suspicion of murder.”
The spokesman for the GNR continued: “The PJ police investigated the property and did not find any evidence of robbery or any other crime.”
At the time of the incident, the police spokesman said that Jacinta Rees could have been “psychologically impaired” due to the fact that she had been in a car accident two days earlier and treated at Beja Hospital.
According to Australian newspaper Herald Sun, a new autopsy by Australian authorities concluded that Jacinta Rees died from a “blunt force injury to the left side of the head. The injury pattern with trauma to both head and the left arm raises serious concerns. Further investigations are being undertaken via the Victorian Police Department’s homicide squad.”
https://www.portugalresident.com/australian-womans-death-in-algarve-questioned-by-family/
Of course Portugal won't ever investigate Amaral not even when he throws his weight behind the paedophile and rapist suspect in Madeleine's murder suggesting he's a patsy.
What would be the point anyway. Even were he to be convicted of something, the appeal courts would iron it all out for him. Can't help but wonder why his appeal against perjury resulting from the torture trial hit the skids when even Cristivao walked away from that one without blemish to his name.
It's far cheaper and easier for the State to throw Amaral to the wolves than be accountable for the systemic failures/corruption within their own justice system which have allowed the likes of Brueckner to commit crimes in Portugal with impunity imo.
-
I'm not sure whether the Royal tip-off was forwarded to the PJ or not. It was certainly leaked to the UK press on 1st October 2007.
https://themaddiecasefiles.com/charles-gets-a-tip-off-daily-express-01-10-07-t15192.html#p210687
Not surprisingly, Portuguese newspaper Diário de Notícias asked Amaral to comment and he did.
None of that has anything to do with the Libel trial, of course.
It is a matter of record that Amaral flagrantly broke the law, and even worse was stupid and arrogant enough to be caught doing so! One expresses no opinion on your toleration of that fact. It is self explanatory.
-
Look at it this way: is it a FACT that the dogs alerted to Madeleine's corpse?
No, look at it this way its what its all about, how did Amaral lie when he saw the dog alerts as evidence.
You can have as many debates about the dogs as you like, its Amaral's interpretation and subsequent theory outlined in his book, its not a lie that he saw the alerts as evidence.
-
Those who rely on the tabloid press to form their opinions should maybe look at the actual evidence rather than sensationlist headines.
Perhaps it would be of some value to you to heed your own advice and accept what known evidence there is minus your own particular interpretation.
-
It is a matter of record that Amaral flagrantly broke the law, and even worse was stupid and arrogant enough to be caught doing so! One expresses no opinion on your toleration of that fact. It is self explanatory.
Was he breaking the law? Was whatever the UK police were doing covered by the secrecy of justice if they were acting on their own initiative?
-
Amaral was told the alerts were not evidence..the lie was to say the alert was to cadaver odour
Amaral was removed in October, at what time was he informed if at all.
Its not a lie to say the dogs alerted, its not been proven either way, his interpretation was they did, so that is not a lie.
-
There was only one child/victim reported missing from 5a, what other victim could there have been, once again Amaral saw the dog alerts as evidence, how was this a lie.
It's not a proven fact there was a ever a cadaver in 5A, let alone Madeleine's. It was a fallacy akin to a lie to state thus.
-
Amaral had the same right to speculate on the crime as the McCanns did, so long as he based his theory upon the contents of the investigation files.
Amaral had no right to speculate during the five months when he was senior investigating officer. He certainly had no right to rant to a journalist about it breaking Portuguese secrecy law in the process.
-
It's not a proven fact there was a ever a cadaver in 5A, let alone Madeleine's. It was a fallacy akin to a lie to state thus.
Did Amaral lie when he saw the alerts as evidence of a cadaver in 5a, simple yes or no.
-
Amaral had no right to speculate during the five months when he was senior investigating officer. He certainly had no right to rant to a journalist about it breaking Portuguese secrecy law in the process.
Well, it appears he did, because he hasn't been charged with anything & so must remain innocent until proven guilty in a court of law, isn't it just.
-
Did Amaral lie when he saw the alerts as evidence of a cadaver in 5a, simple yes or no.
It was foolish of him to believe he knew better than Harrison & Grime. Or was it? Maybe the alerts really were to Madeleine's body odour? Who knows? I guess we'll just have to wait for Wolters to prove Amarar wrong.
-
It's far cheaper and easier for the State to throw Amaral to the wolves than be accountable for the systemic failures/corruption within their own justice system which have allowed the likes of Brueckner to commit crimes in Portugal with impunity imo.
I think the time for such a reckoning might be fast approaching.
-
I think the time for such a reckoning might be fast approaching.
Yes, it shouldn't be much longer now.
-
Well, it appears he did, because he hasn't been charged with anything & so must remain innocent until proven guilty in a court of law, isn't it just.
Well yes, seeing as if this thread is supposed to be about the ECHR, which delivered its verdict in Sept last year its all mute.
Was it ever brought to attention on here, must have a look.
-
Did Amaral lie when he saw the alerts as evidence of a cadaver in 5a, simple yes or no.
Yes, he lied because the alerts weren't evidence of what he claimed. Had he read Harrison's & Grime's reports properly he should have understood that.
-
No, look at it this way its what its all about, how did Amaral lie when he saw the dog alerts as evidence.
You can have as many debates about the dogs as you like, its Amaral's interpretation and subsequent theory outlined in his book, its not a lie that he saw the alerts as evidence.
Amaral or his publishers chose the title of his book so either he is a liar or he formed his opinion based entirely on total lack of knowledge of what the forensic said and is therefore an ignoramus.
-
September 2022
McCann and Healy v. Portugal - 57195/17
Judgment 20.9.2022 [Section IV]
Article 8
Positive obligations
Article 8-1
Respect for private life
Refusal of a civil claim by the applicants, accused of criminal conduct in respect of their missing daughter by a former police officer who had been responsible for the extensively publicised investigation, which was discontinued for lack of evidence: no violation
Facts – Following the disappearance of Madeleine McCann in the night of 3 May 2007 in southern Portugal, her parents (the applicants) had been placed under investigation.
On 2 October 2007 the police inspector in charge of the investigation (G.A.) was removed from those duties.
On 21 July 2008 the prosecutor’s office issued a decision to discontinue the investigation on account of a lack of evidence against the applicants.
On 24 July 2008 G.A. published a book, based on the public investigation file, in which he accused the parents of having been involved in their daughter’s disappearance. G.A. gave a newspaper interview which was published on the day that the book was issued. The book was also adapted as a documentary, which was broadcast on television before being made available for commercialisation.
The proceedings brought by the applicants were unsuccessful.
They accused the national courts of having failed in their positive obligation to protect their right to the presumption of innocence and to their reputation.
Law – Article 8:
1. Applicability – The impugned statements made by G.A. in the book, documentary programme and interview concerned the applicants’ alleged involvement in hiding their daughter’s body, based on a theory that they had staged an abduction and on a presumed acts of negligence towards her. These statements were sufficiently serious to attract the application of Article 8.
Conclusion: Article 8 applicable.
2. Merits –
The domestic courts had correctly identified the interests at stake, namely, on the one hand, G.A.’s right to freedom of expression and the right to hold opinions and, on the other, the applicants’ right to respect for their reputation, which was linked to their right to be presumed innocent, and had taken the view that G.A.’s rights should prevail over those of the applicants. They had also observed that these rights deserved equal protection and that, in those circumstances, a balancing exercise had to be carried out. Thus, the question which arose was whether the domestic courts had undertaken this balancing exercise in conformity with the criteria laid down in the Court’s case-law.
(a) Contribution to a debate of general interest
In the Court’s view, as the Supreme Court had concluded, G.A.’s book, the related documentary and the interview given by him to a daily newspaper concerned a debate of public interest. The extensive media coverage given to the case clearly showed the interest that it had aroused both nationally and internationally.
(b) The applicants’ previous conduct and the extent to which they were well known
The Court understood that, in seeking media attention, the applicants had wished to use every possible avenue in order to find their daughter. It remained the case that although they had been unknown to the public before the incident, through their media exposure they had ended up acquiring a certain notoriety and becoming public figures. In consequence, they had inevitably and knowingly laid themselves open to close scrutiny of their every word and deed.
(c) The subject matter of the book, documentary and interview, and how the information was obtained
In the Court’s view, the information contained in the book, documentary and interview had come from the criminal investigation case file, which was in the public domain.
(d) The content of the contested statements and their impact
Having regard to the context of the case and similarly to the findings of the domestic courts, the contested statements constituted value judgments which had a sufficient factual basis, namely the elements which had been gathered during the investigation and brought to the public’s attention. Additionally, this theory had been entertained in the context of the criminal investigation and had even led to the applicants being placed under investigation in September 2007.
Moreover, the criminal case had attracted impassioned public interest both nationally and internationally and had given rise to considerable discussion and controversy. As the court of appeal and the Supreme Court had noted, the disputed statements had undeniably formed part of a debate of public interest, and G.A.’s theory had accordingly been one of several opinions.
The criminal case had been discontinued by the prosecutor’s office. In this connection, had the book been published before the decision by the prosecutor’s office to discontinue the proceedings, the statements in question could potentially have undermined the applicants’ right to be presumed innocent, guaranteed by Article 6 § 2 of the Convention, by prejudging that entity’s assessment of the facts. Given that the statements were in fact made after the case had been discontinued, it had been the applicants’ reputation, guaranteed by Article 8 of the Convention, and the public’s perception of them, which had been at stake. Public confidence in the functioning of the judiciary had also been a relevant issue.
Even supposing that the applicants’ reputation had been damaged, this had not been on account of the hypothesis put forward by G.A., but as a result of the suspicions expressed against them, which had led to their being placed under investigation in the course of the proceedings and had given rise to extensive media attention and much controversy. The information had been thus brought to the public’s attention in some detail even before the investigation file had been made available to the media and the book in question had been published.
The book had been published three days after the proceedings had been discontinued, which implied that it had been written, then printed, while the investigation had still been underway. G.A. could, as a matter of prudence, have added a note informing the reader about the outcome of the proceedings. However, the failure to insert any such note could not, in itself, prove bad faith on his part. Furthermore, the documentary did refer to the fact that the case had been discontinued.
The applicants had continued their media campaign after the book’s publication. In particular, they had cooperated in a documentary programme about their daughter’s disappearance and continued to give interviews to the international media. While the Court understood that the book’s publication had undeniably caused anger, anguish and distress to the applicants, it did not appear that the book, or the broadcasting of the documentary, had had a serious impact on the applicants’ social relations or on their legitimate and ongoing attempts to find their daughter.
(e) The particular circumstances of the case
The Court could agree with the analysis of the court of appeal and the Supreme Court. Admittedly, the statements in question were based on G.A.’s in-depth knowledge of the case file as a result of his role. However, their content had already been known to the public, given the extensive media coverage of the case and the fact that the investigation file had been subsequently made available to the media after the investigation had been closed. Thus, the contested statements were merely the expression of G.A.’s interpretation of a high-profile case which had already been widely discussed. In addition, it did not appear that G.A. had been motivated by personal animosity towards the applicants.
Having regard to the particular circumstances of the present case, a ruling against G.A. would have had a chilling effect in terms of freedom of expression with regard to matters of public interest.
(g) Conclusion
The Supreme Court had carried out a detailed analysis of the balance to be struck between the applicants’ right to respect for their private life and G.A.’s right to freedom of expression, assessing them in the light of the criteria identified in its case-law and referring at length to the Court’s case-law. Having regard to the margin of appreciation afforded to the national authorities in the present case, the Court saw no strong reason to substitute its own view for that of the Supreme Court. The national authorities had not therefore failed in their positive obligation to protect the applicants’ right to respect for their private life.
Conclusion: no violation (unanimously).
-
Was he breaking the law? Was whatever the UK police were doing covered by the secrecy of justice if they were acting on their own initiative?
If that is a serious post I must express incredulity. If it is not serious please desist from winding me up, we've already got a resident WUM who nobody bothers with anyway, but one is enough!
-
Yes, he lied because the alerts weren't evidence of what he claimed. Had he read Harrison's & Grime's reports properly he should have understood that.
Did he write the book before Harrisons and Grimes report, but thats not the issue, the claim is Amaral lied in writing the dogs alerted to cadaver, his interpretation at the time of publishing was that he saw it as evidence, so once again how was this a lie that he saw the alerts as evidence.
At what point did the Judge who wrote the legal summary of the first judgement conclude that the dogs alerted, if the lie is that Amaral saw the alerts as evidence then also the judge also lied and it all should be null and void anyway.
-
"While the Court understood that the book’s publication had undeniably caused anger, anguish and distress to the applicants, it did not appear that the book, or the broadcasting of the documentary, had had a serious impact on the applicants’ social relations or on their legitimate and ongoing attempts to find their daughter."
The ECHR believe Madeleine was abducted. So, there's a small win in this defeat for McCann/Healy & their supporters.
-
The whole shebang in French, translate at will.
https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-219530
-
Did he write the book before Harrisons and Grimes report, but thats not the issue, the claim is Amaral lied in writing the dogs alerted to cadaver, his interpretation at the time of publishing was that he saw it as evidence, so once again how was this a lie that he saw the alerts as evidence.
At what point did the Judge who wrote the legal summary of the first judgement conclude that the dogs alerted, if the lie is that Amaral saw the alerts as evidence then also the judge also lied and it all should be null and void anyway.
We don't know when why or who decided that the alerts were proof of cadaver odour..
It's not about people having an opinion..it's the claim that the alerts were proof.
-
Well yes, seeing as if this thread is supposed to be about the ECHR, which delivered its verdict in Sept last year its all mute.
Was it ever brought to attention on here, must have a look.
Look up the definition of mute and get back to us on that would you?
-
If that is a serious post I must express incredulity. If it is not serious please desist from winding me up, we've already got a resident WUM who nobody bothers with anyway, but one is enough!
If the allegations made in this email weren't being investigated by the Portuguese investigation then it wasn't part of that investigation so it couldn't be covered by Judicial secrecy.
-
We don't know when why or who decided that the alerts were proof of cadaver odour..
It's not about people having an opinion..it's the claim that the alerts were proof.
Its the claim he thought it was, so he never lied in that respect.
-
Look up the definition of mute and get back to us on that would you?
When you become the official spelling corrected to all concerned maybe I'll take you seriously.
-
When you become the official spelling corrected to all concerned maybe I'll take you seriously.
Amarar was my favourite misspelling of the day. I'm not knocking davel for it either. It's just it made me think of Mum-rah. The arch villain in ThunderCats. Amarar, the McCanns Evil Nemesis.
-
When you become the official spelling corrected to all concerned maybe I'll take you seriously.
Pardon?
You spelt mute perfectly, you just used the word incorrectly.
-
If the allegations made in this email weren't being investigated by the Portuguese investigation then it wasn't part of that investigation so it couldn't be covered by Judicial secrecy.
I think you are as usual purposefully deflecting by asking entirely the wrong question.
You have established that the Portuguese investigation was in receipt of information from the British police concerning evidence passed to them in a missing child investigation.
Snip
The BBC's special correspondent Richard Bilton said the detective made his comments at the end of an interview in which he talked about the coverage of Madeleine's case by the British media.
The newspaper said he was reacting to a story which appeared on Tuesday claiming that Leicestershire police were investigating an email sent anonymously to Prince Charles's official website alleging that a disgruntled former employee had abducted Madeleine.
Mr Amaral reportedly accused the McCanns of releasing new information each day in a bid to distract and confuse the inquiry, our correspondent said. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7024934.stm
If as you suggest, the Portuguese senior investigative officer ignored that officially imparted evidence (British police have worked with the Portuguese authorities for parts of their inquiry. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7024934.stm) why on earth would you think that was appropriate behaviour when it directly concerned a missing child?
Are you excusing this man of ignoring evidence relating to the case being investigated without having it checked to rule it in or out?
Are you incapable of recognising what constitutes a dereliction of duty.
Raising the matter of this inter police correspondence during the inquiry into a missing child with anyone let alone a journalist - is a breach of Portuguese secrecy law. And wriggle as you like that is the case!
Snip
Mr Amaral, who heads the regional Policia Judiciaria (PJ) in Portimao, was reported in the Diario de Noticias as saying: "The British police have been working solely on what the McCanns want and what suits them."
The police removed him after the comments were published, but reportedly gave no reason.
The PJ's national director, Alipio Ribeiro, told journalists at a conference in Lisbon that Mr Amaral's "commission of service has ceased". Mr Amaral, who heads the regional Policia Judiciaria (PJ) in Portimao, was reported in the Diario de Noticias as saying: "The British police have been working solely on what the McCanns want and what suits them."
The police removed him after the comments were published, but reportedly gave no reason.
The PJ's national director, Alipio Ribeiro, told journalists at a conference in Lisbon that Mr Amaral's "commission of service has ceased". http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7024934.stm
-
I think you are as usual purposefully deflecting by asking entirely the wrong question.
You have established that the Portuguese investigation was in receipt of information from the British police concerning evidence passed to them in a missing child investigation.
Snip
The BBC's special correspondent Richard Bilton said the detective made his comments at the end of an interview in which he talked about the coverage of Madeleine's case by the British media.
The newspaper said he was reacting to a story which appeared on Tuesday claiming that Leicestershire police were investigating an email sent anonymously to Prince Charles's official website alleging that a disgruntled former employee had abducted Madeleine.
Mr Amaral reportedly accused the McCanns of releasing new information each day in a bid to distract and confuse the inquiry, our correspondent said. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7024934.stm
If as you suggest, the Portuguese senior investigative officer ignored that officially imparted evidence (British police have worked with the Portuguese authorities for parts of their inquiry. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7024934.stm) why on earth would you think that was appropriate behaviour when it directly concerned a missing child?
Are you excusing this man of ignoring evidence relating to the case being investigated without having it checked to rule it in or out?
Are you incapable of recognising what constitutes a dereliction of duty.
Raising the matter of this inter police correspondence during the inquiry into a missing child with anyone let alone a journalist - is a breach of Portuguese secrecy law. And wriggle as you like that is the case!
Snip
Mr Amaral, who heads the regional Policia Judiciaria (PJ) in Portimao, was reported in the Diario de Noticias as saying: "The British police have been working solely on what the McCanns want and what suits them."
The police removed him after the comments were published, but reportedly gave no reason.
The PJ's national director, Alipio Ribeiro, told journalists at a conference in Lisbon that Mr Amaral's "commission of service has ceased". Mr Amaral, who heads the regional Policia Judiciaria (PJ) in Portimao, was reported in the Diario de Noticias as saying: "The British police have been working solely on what the McCanns want and what suits them."
The police removed him after the comments were published, but reportedly gave no reason.
The PJ's national director, Alipio Ribeiro, told journalists at a conference in Lisbon that Mr Amaral's "commission of service has ceased". http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7024934.stm
The UK police had a tip-off about an ex OC employee. They were unable to investigate in Portugal, the PJ would have to do that. I can find no record of them being informed or asked to help to investigate this tip-off. Can you?
-
The UK police had a tip-off about an ex OC employee. They were unable to investigate in Portugal, the PJ would have to do that. I can find no record of them being informed or asked to help to investigate this tip-off. Can you?
Try the wastepaper bin in Amaral’s old office (it might not yet have been emptied).
-
Its the claim he thought it was, so he never lied in that respect.
You need to explain that to gunit...lol
She doesn't know what lie means
-
September 2022
McCann and Healy v. Portugal - 57195/17
Judgment 20.9.2022 [Section IV]
Article 8
Positive obligations
Article 8-1
Respect for private life
Refusal of a civil claim by the applicants, accused of criminal conduct in respect of their missing daughter by a former police officer who had been responsible for the extensively publicised investigation, which was discontinued for lack of evidence: no violation
Facts – Following the disappearance of Madeleine McCann in the night of 3 May 2007 in southern Portugal, her parents (the applicants) had been placed under investigation.
On 2 October 2007 the police inspector in charge of the investigation (G.A.) was removed from those duties.
On 21 July 2008 the prosecutor’s office issued a decision to discontinue the investigation on account of a lack of evidence against the applicants.
On 24 July 2008 G.A. published a book, based on the public investigation file, in which he accused the parents of having been involved in their daughter’s disappearance. G.A. gave a newspaper interview which was published on the day that the book was issued. The book was also adapted as a documentary, which was broadcast on television before being made available for commercialisation.
The proceedings brought by the applicants were unsuccessful.
They accused the national courts of having failed in their positive obligation to protect their right to the presumption of innocence and to their reputation.
Law – Article 8:
1. Applicability – The impugned statements made by G.A. in the book, documentary programme and interview concerned the applicants’ alleged involvement in hiding their daughter’s body, based on a theory that they had staged an abduction and on a presumed acts of negligence towards her. These statements were sufficiently serious to attract the application of Article 8.
Conclusion: Article 8 applicable.
2. Merits –
The domestic courts had correctly identified the interests at stake, namely, on the one hand, G.A.’s right to freedom of expression and the right to hold opinions and, on the other, the applicants’ right to respect for their reputation, which was linked to their right to be presumed innocent, and had taken the view that G.A.’s rights should prevail over those of the applicants. They had also observed that these rights deserved equal protection and that, in those circumstances, a balancing exercise had to be carried out. Thus, the question which arose was whether the domestic courts had undertaken this balancing exercise in conformity with the criteria laid down in the Court’s case-law.
(a) Contribution to a debate of general interest
In the Court’s view, as the Supreme Court had concluded, G.A.’s book, the related documentary and the interview given by him to a daily newspaper concerned a debate of public interest. The extensive media coverage given to the case clearly showed the interest that it had aroused both nationally and internationally.
(b) The applicants’ previous conduct and the extent to which they were well known
The Court understood that, in seeking media attention, the applicants had wished to use every possible avenue in order to find their daughter. It remained the case that although they had been unknown to the public before the incident, through their media exposure they had ended up acquiring a certain notoriety and becoming public figures. In consequence, they had inevitably and knowingly laid themselves open to close scrutiny of their every word and deed.
(c) The subject matter of the book, documentary and interview, and how the information was obtained
In the Court’s view, the information contained in the book, documentary and interview had come from the criminal investigation case file, which was in the public domain.
(d) The content of the contested statements and their impact
Having regard to the context of the case and similarly to the findings of the domestic courts, the contested statements constituted value judgments which had a sufficient factual basis, namely the elements which had been gathered during the investigation and brought to the public’s attention. Additionally, this theory had been entertained in the context of the criminal investigation and had even led to the applicants being placed under investigation in September 2007.
Moreover, the criminal case had attracted impassioned public interest both nationally and internationally and had given rise to considerable discussion and controversy. As the court of appeal and the Supreme Court had noted, the disputed statements had undeniably formed part of a debate of public interest, and G.A.’s theory had accordingly been one of several opinions.
The criminal case had been discontinued by the prosecutor’s office. In this connection, had the book been published before the decision by the prosecutor’s office to discontinue the proceedings, the statements in question could potentially have undermined the applicants’ right to be presumed innocent, guaranteed by Article 6 § 2 of the Convention, by prejudging that entity’s assessment of the facts. Given that the statements were in fact made after the case had been discontinued, it had been the applicants’ reputation, guaranteed by Article 8 of the Convention, and the public’s perception of them, which had been at stake. Public confidence in the functioning of the judiciary had also been a relevant issue.
Even supposing that the applicants’ reputation had been damaged, this had not been on account of the hypothesis put forward by G.A., but as a result of the suspicions expressed against them, which had led to their being placed under investigation in the course of the proceedings and had given rise to extensive media attention and much controversy. The information had been thus brought to the public’s attention in some detail even before the investigation file had been made available to the media and the book in question had been published.
The book had been published three days after the proceedings had been discontinued, which implied that it had been written, then printed, while the investigation had still been underway. G.A. could, as a matter of prudence, have added a note informing the reader about the outcome of the proceedings. However, the failure to insert any such note could not, in itself, prove bad faith on his part. Furthermore, the documentary did refer to the fact that the case had been discontinued.
The applicants had continued their media campaign after the book’s publication. In particular, they had cooperated in a documentary programme about their daughter’s disappearance and continued to give interviews to the international media. While the Court understood that the book’s publication had undeniably caused anger, anguish and distress to the applicants, it did not appear that the book, or the broadcasting of the documentary, had had a serious impact on the applicants’ social relations or on their legitimate and ongoing attempts to find their daughter.
(e) The particular circumstances of the case
The Court could agree with the analysis of the court of appeal and the Supreme Court. Admittedly, the statements in question were based on G.A.’s in-depth knowledge of the case file as a result of his role. However, their content had already been known to the public, given the extensive media coverage of the case and the fact that the investigation file had been subsequently made available to the media after the investigation had been closed. Thus, the contested statements were merely the expression of G.A.’s interpretation of a high-profile case which had already been widely discussed. In addition, it did not appear that G.A. had been motivated by personal animosity towards the applicants.
Having regard to the particular circumstances of the present case, a ruling against G.A. would have had a chilling effect in terms of freedom of expression with regard to matters of public interest.
(g) Conclusion
The Supreme Court had carried out a detailed analysis of the balance to be struck between the applicants’ right to respect for their private life and G.A.’s right to freedom of expression, assessing them in the light of the criteria identified in its case-law and referring at length to the Court’s case-law. Having regard to the margin of appreciation afforded to the national authorities in the present case, the Court saw no strong reason to substitute its own view for that of the Supreme Court. The national authorities had not therefore failed in their positive obligation to protect the applicants’ right to respect for their private life.
Conclusion: no violation (unanimously).
what your post shows is that the echr decision is based on the fact that it is proven a cadaver had been in 5a....how could they reach any other decision
-
Try the wastepaper bin in Amaral’s old office (it might not yet have been emptied).
Typically facetious answer to a serious point. I would like to know who leaked the story about the email tip-off to the press, whether the UK police were involved, and if the PJ knew anthing about it before the story was leaked.
-
Typically facetious answer to a serious point. I would like to know who leaked the story about the email tip-off to the press, whether the UK police were involved, and if the PJ knew anthing about it before the story was leaked.
what does it matter ..CB is guilty...its a proven fact
-
Typically facetious answer to a serious point. I would like to know who leaked the story about the email tip-off to the press, whether the UK police were involved, and if the PJ knew anthing about it before the story was leaked.
Well you’d better put on your deerstalker, get out your magnifying glass and do some serious investigating because you ain’t going to get the answers you so urgently seek chatting to anyone on here. Good luck!
-
what does it matter ..CB is guilty...its a proven fact
Of what ? he's guilty of being accused of suspicion of killing Madeleine not of the actual fact
-
Of what ? he's guilty of being accused of suspicion of killing Madeleine not of the actual fact
Guilty of murder..the evidence is overwhelming
-
Guilty of murder..the evidence is overwhelming
I'm sure you'll explain the relevance to the McCanns appeal to the ECHR.
-
I'm sure you'll explain the relevance to the McCanns appeal to the ECHR.
Are you
-
Are you
Always.
-
what your post shows is that the echr decision is based on the fact that it is proven a cadaver had been in 5a....how could they reach any other decision
But the ECHR also agreed that Madeleine was abducted. How they reached that decision isn't entirely clear.
-
Guilty of murder..the evidence is overwhelming
Never has a truer statement of truth or proven fact been spoken.
-
The UK police had a tip-off about an ex OC employee. They were unable to investigate in Portugal, the PJ would have to do that. I can find no record of them being informed or asked to help to investigate this tip-off. Can you?
Do you have any knowledge of this case whatsoever? If you claim you do ... why is it you get it so consistently wrong.
Snip
Gonçalo Amaral revealed that the "statement" he gave to Diarios de Noticias – and was the reason for his removal, according to the PJ director – was not correctly reproduced and it was not a statement to a newspaper, but just an informal talk with a journalist from Faro, "very close to the family, a friend of my wife", who called him to ask about the email sent to the web site of Prince Charles, denouncing a former employee of Ocean Club as the kidnapper. "What I said, talking not to a journalist, but with a friend,
Gonçalo Amaral and Madeleine's case: "There was more politics than police"
04/07/2008
Paulo Reis, Transcription with help from Claudia
When is a secret no longer a secret?
Amaral confessed on interview by the Portuguese press that he had discussed Madeleine's case with a journalist.
The breach of confidence resulted in him being sacked from Madeleine's case. And however you attempt to sanitise it, by discussing the case outwith the investigation Amaral Broke the Law and should not only have been sacked from the case he should have been prosecuted.
-
Madeleine detective kicked off case after blasting British police
3 October 2007
The Daily Express
David Pilditch and Martin Evans in Praia da Luz
THE Portuguese detective leading the Madeleine McCann case was sacked last night.
Chief Inspector Goncalo Amaral was booted off the inquiry hours after launching an astonishing public attack on British police – claiming they had been duped by Kate and Gerry McCann.
Disgraced Amaral has been removed from the case, demoted to the rank of inspector, and stripped of his role as regional head of the Policia Judiciaria.
He was ordered to clear his desk at police headquarters in Portimao and will begin work in a new role at nearby Faro.
A Portuguese police spokesman said last night: "We cannot make any comment on the reasons for his dismissal.
"But we can confirm that he did not resign. He was removed from his post. The decision was taken by the national leadership of the Judicial Police." Amaral, who turned 48 yesterday, was taken off the case by his boss Alipio Ribeiro.
...
The bombshell came after Amaral accused British police of shielding the McCanns.
He claimed they were only pursuing leads that could help clear the couple, and were hampering his investigation into the four-year-old's disappearance from her family's holiday apartment in the the Algarve.
The explosive outburst led to the first intervention by the Portuguese government, in a very public reprimand by the Justice Minister Alberto Costa.
Last night a Portuguese police source described Amaral's remarks as "the straw that broke the camel's back".
He had breached Portuguese law and broken his silence over the Madeleine case, claiming:
"The British police have only been working on what the McCann couple want them to and what suits them most." The McCanns have been warned they face jail if they speak about the case – but Amaral appeared unconcerned by the secrecy laws as he sneered at a line of inquiry being followed by Leicestershire Police.
Amaral said a tip-off sent to Prince Charles's website that Madeleine may have been snatched by a former employee at the Ocean Club complex had "no credibility whatsoever".
He told Portuguese newspaper Diario de Noticias: "The Ocean Club is in Praia da Luz, not in London.
"That means that anything in respect to the complex and the employees – current or ex – has been or is being investigated by the Policia Judiciaria.
"It won't be an email, and an anonymous one at that, which will distract our line of investigation." He even claimed the tipoff was created by the McCanns.
https://newsoutlines.blogspot.com/2007/10/madeleine-detective-kicked-off-case.html
-
Well you’d better put on your deerstalker, get out your magnifying glass and do some serious investigating because you ain’t going to get the answers you so urgently seek chatting to anyone on here. Good luck!
Knowing there are questions about this story is a start. It beats accepting tabloid stories without giving them some thought imo.
-
Knowing there are questions about this story is a start. It beats accepting tabloid stories without giving them some thought imo.
Yes, because you’re so very clever and we’re just dumb sheeple blindly accepting everything we’re fed by the MSN. This is such a typical Conspiracy Theorist’s view, don’t believe anything anyone’s telling you that way you can believe anything you like.
-
Yes, because you’re so very clever and we’re just dumb sheeple blindly accepting everything we’re fed by the MSN. This is such a typical Conspiracy Theorist’s view, don’t believe anything anyone’s telling you that way you can believe anything you like.
Do you believe what the Scottish Sun said; that Amaral accused the McCanns of killing their daughter?
-
Do you believe what the Scottish Sun said; that Amaral accused the McCanns of killing their daughter?
Is this your attempt at a “gotcha” question? If I say no, does that mean everything ever reported in every tabloid ever must be untrue? As far as I’m aware Amaral accused the McCanns of administering a sedative to their child resulting in her accidental death, so perhaps you can tell me why you think in such a scenario such actions would not be tantamount to an accusation of manslaughter?
-
Knowing there are questions about this story is a start. It beats accepting tabloid stories without giving them some thought imo.
I think we should be informed of the sources your "information" emanates from since it is obvious you think it is superior to that which is available to the rest of us.
-
I think we should be informed of the sources your "information" emanates from since it is obvious you think it is superior to that which is available to the rest of us.
Just common sense, Brietta. The story was given to the UK press on 1st October and Amaral was asked about it on 2nd. He denied the PJ were investigating it, despite what David Brown claimed;
A maid who is alleged to have abducted Madeleine McCann in revenge for being sacked from the holiday resort where the missing girl was staying is being investigated by Portuguese police.
https://themaddiecasefiles.com/a-sacked-maid-seeking-revenge-is-latest-suspect-1--t582.html
Who was investigating in Portugal then?
A police source told London newspaper The News of the World: "There have been hundreds of Madeleine theories, sightings and tips sent into UK cops from members of the public. But this one is different.
"It's incredibly detailed and so far, from the inquiries being made in Portugal, it appears to be based on factual events."
https://themaddiecasefiles.com/royal-tip-in-search-for-maddie-courier-mail-aus-01-t18500.html
The answer has got to be no-one, because the UK police weren't allowed and there's nothing to suggest the PJ were either informed or interested.
Amaral shouldn't have made the remarks he made, but I can understand why he did.
-
Just common sense, Brietta. The story was given to the UK press on 1st October and Amaral was asked about it on 2nd. He denied the PJ were investigating it, despite what David Brown claimed;
A maid who is alleged to have abducted Madeleine McCann in revenge for being sacked from the holiday resort where the missing girl was staying is being investigated by Portuguese police.
https://themaddiecasefiles.com/a-sacked-maid-seeking-revenge-is-latest-suspect-1--t582.html
Who was investigating in Portugal then?
A police source told London newspaper The News of the World: "There have been hundreds of Madeleine theories, sightings and tips sent into UK cops from members of the public. But this one is different.
"It's incredibly detailed and so far, from the inquiries being made in Portugal, it appears to be based on factual events."
https://themaddiecasefiles.com/royal-tip-in-search-for-maddie-courier-mail-aus-01-t18500.html
The answer has got to be no-one, because the UK police weren't allowed and there's nothing to suggest the PJ were either informed or interested.
Amaral shouldn't have made the remarks he made, but I can understand why he did.
Are you suggesting that this report is completely fabricated from start to finish? We know that Amaral is a liar but also bound by judicial secrecy when it suited him and we know that the PJ files released to the public are incomplete so what leads you to conclude this claim has no basis in fact whatsoever?
-
Is this your attempt at a “gotcha” question? If I say no, does that mean everything ever reported in every tabloid ever must be untrue? As far as I’m aware Amaral accused the McCanns of administering a sedative to their child resulting in her accidental death, so perhaps you can tell me why you think in such a scenario such actions would not be tantamount to an accusation of manslaughter?
Well?
-
Are you suggesting that this report is completely fabricated from start to finish? We know that Amaral is a liar but also bound by judicial secrecy when it suited him and we know that the PJ files released to the public are incomplete so what leads you to conclude this claim has no basis in fact whatsoever?
I think there was an anonymous email, but the UK police weren't allowed to investigate in Portugal and there's no evidence that the PJ either knew about it or were investigating it.
-
I think there was an anonymous email, but the UK police weren't allowed to investigate in Portugal and there's no evidence that the PJ either knew about it or were investigating it.
So you think that Leicestershire Police and Scotland Yard (who couldn't investigate further) simply decided not to pass this information on to the only force that could investigate it further? In other words you believe them guilty of a gross dereliction of duty in this case for failing to pass on a possibly significant lead to the PJ? OK, well you can choose to believe that, and I'll choose to believe that the PJ couldn't be arsed to follow it up properly. After all aren't PJ apologists always pointing out how they swamped with thousands of leads, yet most of them don't appear in the files that you and I have access to, so do you believe in reality none of those actually got as far as the PJ either?
-
So you think that Leicestershire Police and Scotland Yard (who couldn't investigate further) simply decided not to pass this information on to the only force that could investigate it further? In other words you believe them guilty of a gross dereliction of duty in this case for failing to pass on a possibly significant lead to the PJ? OK, well you can choose to believe that, and I'll choose to believe that the PJ couldn't be arsed to follow it up properly. After all aren't PJ apologists always pointing out how they swamped with thousands of leads, yet most of them don't appear in the files that you and I have access to, so do you believe in reality none of those actually got as far as the PJ either?
There are more questions than answers with this story. Like many others it then disappeared without any further comment. Who leaked to the press and why?
-
There are more questions than answers with this story. Like many others it then disappeared without any further comment. Who leaked to the press and why?
A police source, according to this, and probably for money or favours. Next question?
"A police source told London newspaper The News of the World: "There have been hundreds of Madeleine theories, sightings and tips sent into UK cops from members of the public. But this one is different.
"It's incredibly detailed and so far, from the inquiries being made in Portugal, it appears to be based on factual events.""
-
A police source, according to this, and probably for money or favours. Next question?
"A police source told London newspaper The News of the World: "There have been hundreds of Madeleine theories, sightings and tips sent into UK cops from members of the public. But this one is different.
"It's incredibly detailed and so far, from the inquiries being made in Portugal, it appears to be based on factual events.""
A police source? Someone who works in the canteen, maybe.
-
A police source? Someone who works in the canteen, maybe.
I see, so you are now holding British policemen in such high esteem that you simply can't consider the possibility that one of them might have leaked to the press. Not just any old press, but the News Of The World who were well known for their relationship with the police as far as getting insider info was concerned. No, you're right, it couldn't possibly have come from a policeman, most likely someone who works in the canteen, or more likely the McCanns themselves invented the whole story in collusion with Clarence House and fed it to the NOTW to gullible mugs like us who lapped it all up unquestioningly, yes that's the most likely explanation. @)(++(*
-
I see, so you are now holding British policemen in such high esteem that you simply can't consider the possibility that one of them might have leaked to the press. Not just any old press, but the News Of The World who were well known for their relationship with the police as far as getting insider info was concerned. No, you're right, it couldn't possibly have come from a policeman, most likely someone who works in the canteen, or more likely the McCanns themselves invented the whole story in collusion with Clarence House and fed it to the NOTW to gullible mugs like us who lapped it all up unquestioningly, yes that's the most likely explanation. @)(++(*
Who knows? All I know is that UK police couldn't investigate in Portugal and the PJ weren't investigating the story according toAmaral.
-
For me Martin Grime is to blame for most of this.
From what Grime said the PJ believed they were the only dogs of their type in th world..has solved countless..around 200 ....crimes...had never been wrong. no wonder they regarded the alert to cadaver faced with all that BS.
The truth was that Harrison and Grime were carrying out a trial using the alerts asi ntelligence...its in grimes white pape. the truth was there was no 100% record...no 200 solved cases...no countless crimes solved.
-
Who knows? All I know is that UK police couldn't investigate in Portugal and the PJ weren't investigating the story according toAmaral.
1) Was Amaral not bound by judicial secrecy not to discuss ongoing investigations? 2) Is Amaral an honest interviewee?
-
Who knows? All I know is that UK police couldn't investigate in Portugal and the PJ weren't investigating the story according toAmaral.
The journalist who wrote the article knows. He refers to a police source. The NOTW famously had policemen on their payroll. Have you not read Leveson? Or any of the myriad articles on the subject? I guess you don't believe any of those articles either, only when it suits you to.
-
For me Martin Grime is to blame for most of this.
From what Grime said the PJ believed they were the only dogs of their type in th world..has solved countless..around 200 ....crimes...had never been wrong. no wonder they regarded the alert to cadaver faced with all that BS.
The truth was that Harrison and Grime were carrying out a trial using the alerts asi ntelligence...its in grimes white pape. the truth was there was no 100% record...no 200 solved cases...no countless crimes solved.
Martin Grime was pursuing his own agenda which didn't have much to do with The Truth. He was a chancer who seems have profited somewhat in America.
I can't be bothered to go into this anymore. We all know what happened in Jersey.
-
1) Was Amaral not bound by judicial secrecy not to discuss ongoing investigations? 2) Is Amaral an honest interviewee?
UK investigations? That reminds me of Carter Ruck pretending that an injunction granted in Portugal applied world-wide.
https://file.wikileaks.org/file/carter-ruck-mccann.pdf
-
UK investigations? That reminds me of Carter Ruck pretending that an injunction granted in Portugal applied world-wide.
https://file.wikileaks.org/file/carter-ruck-mccann.pdf
What? The claim is that the English police sent the info to the PJ, for THEM to investigate, so it should have been a PJ investigation, which would have meant Amaral would have been bound by judicial secrecy, no?
-
What? The claim is that the English police sent the info to the PJ, for THEM to investigate, so it should have been a PJ investigation, which would have meant Amaral would have been bound by judicial secrecy, no?
There's no evidence that the PJ were given the information, whatever the media claimed.
-
There's no evidence that the PJ were given the information, whatever the media claimed.
Try and think logically. You accept the existence of this email, one that went to one of the highest High Ups in the land, now explain why you think the English police would not bother passing the information on to the PJ.
-
What? The claim is that the English police sent the info to the PJ, for THEM to investigate, so it should have been a PJ investigation, which would have meant Amaral would have been bound by judicial secrecy, no?
He should have been charged and prosecuted. But they did the next best thing when they totally humiliated him. Not only was he sacked from the case - he was demoted and transferred. A very bitter pill to swallow for which he blamed the McCanns and which has stoked a vendetta against them which he will take with him to the grave.
I always thought he jumped before he was pushed because of the torture case - I now think that metaphorically having his epaulettes ripped off and his sabre broken, left him with no alternative.
He's certainly had an interesting time in the train crash of his life. Cristovao managed to pen a book which didn't entail spending years in the libel courts (which was just as well because he wouldn't have had the time between his hearings in the criminal courts) but Amaral wasn't bright enough to write a book which wouldn't arrive ultimately at the ECHR.
But it has all gone terribly sour for him yet again particularly as he seems to be a lone voice in his latest prank.
-
There's no evidence that the PJ were given the information, whatever the media claimed.
There's no evidence for any of Amaral's claims against the McCanns. You know this do you not. And you do know that Calpol is an analgesic and not a sedative.
-
Try and think logically. You accept the existence of this email, one that went to one of the highest High Ups in the land, now explain why you think the English police would not bother passing the information on to the PJ.
It all depends on the timeline. The story was leaked on 1st October, but when was the email received? When was it passed to the police? Was there time to involve the PJ? There's no evidence that the PJ were informed.
-
It all depends on the timeline. The story was leaked on 1st October, but when was the email received? When was it passed to the police? Was there time to involve the PJ? There's no evidence that the PJ were informed.
What do you mean “was there time to involve the PJ”? Why would there not have been time? Do you accept that the files are incomplete, or only when it suits you? If the PJ were informed but did nothing save dismiss it without further action what would you expect to see in files released to the public? Is every single lead passed to the PJ contained in the files?
-
back on topic..
the Mccanns lost at the ECHR because the PJ incorrectly decided the alerts proved cadaver odour in %a. So incompetence and stupidity on behalf of the PJ was at the heart of the decision and also caused tehm to believe as a fact maddie died in the apartment.
-
What do you mean “was there time to involve the PJ”? Why would there not have been time? Do you accept that the files are incomplete, or only when it suits you? If the PJ were informed but did nothing save dismiss it without further action what would you expect to see in files released to the public? Is every single lead passed to the PJ contained in the files?
Without knowing when the email was received there's no way of knowing when it was passed to the UK police. Do you have any reason to think it was a while before the leak took place? I see the 'incomplete files' as similar to the 'translation errors'; handy to explain the inexplicable but not reliable at all.
-
back on topic..
the Mccanns lost at the ECHR because the PJ incorrectly decided the alerts proved cadaver odour in %a. So incompetence and stupidity on behalf of the PJ was at the heart of the decision and also caused tehm to believe as a fact maddie died in the apartment.
The McCanns lost at the ECHR because Portugal didn't breach their human rights.
-
Without knowing when the email was received there's no way of knowing when it was passed to the UK police. Do you have any reason to think it was a while before the leak took place? I see the 'incomplete files' as similar to the 'translation errors'; handy to explain the inexplicable but not reliable at all.
You haven’t answered the question. Why would time have run out prior to October 2007 for the English police to pass this information on to the PJ? Do you refuse to accept that the files are incomplete then? Because we know (the PJ told us) there were hundreds if not thousands of sightings and tip offs about Madeleine so where are they all, if not filed in the wastepaper basket? Is the only explanation you will accept is that for some inexplicable reason the English police simply didn’t bother passing on a tip off from Clarence House to the PJ?
-
You haven’t answered the question. Why would time have run out prior to October 2007 for the English police to pass this information on to the PJ? Do you refuse to accept that the files are incomplete then? Because we know (the PJ told us) there were hundreds if not thousands of sightings and tip offs about Madeleine so where are they all, if not filed in the wastepaper basket? Is the only explanation you will accept is that for some inexplicable reason the English police simply didn’t bother passing on a tip off from Clarence House to the PJ?
The question is when was the email given to the UK police and how long was it from then to the press leak? The reported sightings of Madeleine are in Apensos 05, 14 volumes of them. I never said the UK police 'didn't bother' passing the information to the PJ, they were your words.
-
The question is when was the email given to the UK police and how long was it from then to the press leak? The reported sightings of Madeleine are in Apensos 05, 14 volumes of them. I never said the UK police 'didn't bother' passing the information to the PJ, they were your words.
1) what bearing does the length of time between email received and press leak have on anything? 2) You are disputing that the PJ ever received the information from the English police are you not?
-
The McCanns lost at the ECHR because Portugal didn't breach their human rights.
Nope..you're stating opinion not fact.
They lost because they didn't examine the fscts..they simply accepted that it was proven a cadaver had been in 5a..we all know that is total BS..it's never been oroven
-
Nope..you're stating opinion not fact.
They lost because they didn't examine the fscts..they simply accepted that it was proven a cadaver had been in 5a..we all know that is total BS..it's never been oroven
Nor disproven.
-
Nope..you're stating opinion not fact.
They lost because they didn't examine the fscts..they simply accepted that it was proven a cadaver had been in 5a..we all know that is total BS..it's never been oroven
It's been proven to my satisfaction.
-
Nor disproven.
It needs to be proven to become a fact, perhaps you didn’t know this?
-
It needs to be proven to become a fact, perhaps you didn’t know this?
Well its a fact its in the first judgement, the only ones to have issues are posters on here, counts for nothing.
-
Well its a fact its in the first judgement, the only ones to have issues are posters on here, counts for nothing.
The only reason for taking issue with this so called fact is that it’s clearly never been proven that the dogs alerted to cadaver odour, unless you know otherwise?
-
The only reason for taking issue with this so called fact is that it’s clearly never been proven that the dogs alerted to cadaver odour, unless you know otherwise?
So what are you doing about it, writing to the ECHR, your MP ?
-
It's all okay, Folks. Madeleine is still firmly in The News, The McCanns have never been arrested for anything at all and Amaral has been rightly discredited. Personally, I think Amaral is mad, if not worse, but that bit is just my opinion.
-
So what are you doing about it, writing to the ECHR, your MP ?
Right after they start the Go Fund Me for the Ciprianos.
-
It's all okay, Folks. Madeleine is still firmly in The News, The McCanns have never been arrested for anything at all and Amaral has been rightly discredited. Personally, I think Amaral is mad, if not worse, but that bit is just my opinion.
Not doing any good though, is it ? Still missing and no nearer being found than she was in 2007.
As for Amaral, who really cares one way or another about him - other than the fixated few on here ?
-
Not doing any good though, is it ? Still missing and no nearer being found than she was in 2007.
As for Amaral, who really cares one way or another about him - other than the fixated few on here ?
He lives rent free in some minds.
They spend more time complaining about him than discussing the concrete evidence.
-
Nor disproven.
of no relevance
-
He lives rent free in some minds.
They spend more time complaining about him than discussing the concrete evidence.
The concrete evidence is a secret, isn't it? Maybe it'll be revealed in 2024 when CB is tried. (&^& *&^^&
-
So what are you doing about it, writing to the ECHR, your MP ?
Please don’t be silly.
-
The concrete evidence is a secret, isn't it? Maybe it'll be revealed in 2024 when CB is tried. (&^& *&^^&
Ooh, a lovely bit of goading there from the mod, nice one! 8((()*/
-
Not doing any good though, is it ? Still missing and no nearer being found than she was in 2007.
As for Amaral, who really cares one way or another about him - other than the fixated few on here ?
Only a Sceptic could wish for this.
-
Only a Sceptic could wish for this.
So I'm a sceptic. I'm looking at how things are. No sign of Madeleine despite 15 years of publicity.
Incidentally, what does continually moaning about Amaral achieve ?
-
So I'm a sceptic. I'm looking at how things are. No sign of Madeleine despite 15 years of publicity.
Incidentally, what does continually moaning about Amaral achieve ?
If a person's opinion can't be proved wrong then some people think discrediting the person renders their opinion worthless. It doesn't imo, especially when it's so obviously a ploy.
-
If a person's opinion can't be proved wrong then some people think discrediting the person renders their opinion worthless. It doesn't imo, especially when it's so obviously a ploy.
A person who demonstrates ignorance, faulty logic and who has a history of lying and dishonesty is a person whose opinion is not worth the time of day, imo.
Haven’t sceptics spent 16 years discrediting the McCanns, their friends, family and supporters btw?
-
If a person's opinion can't be proved wrong then some people think discrediting the person renders their opinion worthless. It doesn't imo, especially when it's so obviously a ploy.
What makes an opinion worthless is when it's clearly based on total BS..,.like amarals..
Proven total BS at that
-
So I'm a sceptic. I'm looking at how things are. No sign of Madeleine despite 15 years of publicity.
Incidentally, what does continually moaning about Amaral achieve ?
Twenty nine sightings in Malta/Gozo.
Why were they not presented to us as other less likely sightings were ? Malta, the land of the now defunct Templars, now reinvented as Knights of Malta, Knights Hospitalier etc. Where did these titles suddenly appear from ?
True the Templars were the second and subsequent sons of (largely) European Kings. They were trained for 7 years to be warrier monks and in international monetary matters ... but the Knights part of their titles seem like self-agrandisment to me. What a load of suckers we have been falling for all the fairy tales about * The Templars * and * The Knights of ...X,Y,Z. *
And now, it appears to me, these so called Knights and their cohorts (Secret Societies) silently run everything, especially The Law. internationally. Sadly we are becoming slaves IMO
29 Sightings of Madeleine in Malta << why were they ignored, Jassi ? Anyone ?
Additionally sightings all over the world; many will be well intentioned but wrong. Some might be right. They need investigating, not ignorong (hiding?), like the Maltese ones especially.
Incidentally, Amaral comes from a Templar bloodline and was present at the Big Ball in aid of the Knights of Malta in Guimares a few years ago. The video has been shown on here several times. He is also from the Royal Bloodline in Portugal. I have illustrated that several times on here without a flicker of interest being shown.
Now these links mean nothing on their own except that in my case I look at Amaral a little closer than I look at most people, especially as he has proven himself a liar and as a devious man IMO
- And Jassi, let's not forget my video sighting. OG seem to have taken that seriously
29 SIGHTINGS IN MALTA/GOZO Why were these ignored?
Rant Over
-
The question is when was the email given to the UK police and how long was it from then to the press leak? The reported sightings of Madeleine are in Apensos 05, 14 volumes of them. I never said the UK police 'didn't bother' passing the information to the PJ, they were your words.
The email is an irrelevance.
As you know Amaral was sacked from Madeleine's case, transferred and demoted as a direct result of being caught giving classified information relating to an active investigation directly to a journalist
He was punished for this very obvious breach of the law.
-
So I'm a sceptic. I'm looking at how things are. No sign of Madeleine despite 15 years of publicity.
Incidentally, what does continually moaning about Amaral achieve ?
It is interesting to note that members of a justice forum decry an active investigation resulting from a resurrected cold case featuring deliberately un-investigated evidence.
The crime against a little girl was ignored in the first instance. Members are advocating the same negligence be perpetrated second time around when yet again - the evidence ignored in 2007 and still extant now - should be ignored once more.
The object of having police investigations is twofold. One is to find justice for victims and the other is to find the perpetrator/s to prevent future crimes and future victims.
-
It is interesting to note that members of a justice forum decry an active investigation resulting from a resurrected cold case featuring deliberately un-investigated evidence.
The crime against a little girl was ignored in the first instance. Members are advocating the same negligence be perpetrated second time around when yet again - the evidence ignored in 2007 and still extant now - should be ignored once more.
The object of having police investigations is twofold. One is to find justice for victims and the other is to find the perpetrator/s to prevent future crimes and future victims.
I must admit, I'm truly astonished that there haven't been any further abductions since Amaral ignored all the highly credible abduction evidence. It's almost as if there wasn't any abduction in the first instance? Puzzling.
-
I must admit, I'm truly astonished that there haven't been any further abductions since Amaral ignored all the highly credible abduction evidence. It's almost as if there wasn't any abduction in the first instance? Puzzling.
Yes, it sounds prime abduction country, what with all those little blonde victims, a useless police force, and numerous conveniently-close lawless villages.
-
Yes, it sounds prime abduction country, what with all those little blonde victims, a useless police force, and numerous conveniently-close lawless villages.
Don't you think that being the focus of several police forces in recent years might have made abductions from that area less rather than more likely?
-
Would any criminal abductor in half a right mind abduct anyone else from The Algarve with all of the attention focussed World Wide on the area for the last 16 years?
It is plain silly to point out that no one has. That one is a dead duck.
-
Don't you think that being the focus of several police forces in recent years might have made abductions from that area less rather than more likely?
Sometimes I really do despair. Is this the best that Sceptics can do?
-
Would any criminal abductor in half a right mind abduct anyone else from The Algarve with all of the attention focussed World Wide on the area for the last 16 years?
It is plain silly to point out that no one has. That one is a dead duck.
Are there any particular child abductions, outside of the Algarve, that you suspect 'the abductor' may have committed? The three expert investigative forces have never mentioned any that could be connected. Strangely enough.
-
Sometimes I really do despair. Is this the best that Sceptics can do?
What is it you're thinking we are trying to do?
-
Yes, it sounds prime abduction country, what with all those little blonde victims, a useless police force, and numerous conveniently-close lawless villages.
The Algarve is awash with paedophiles, apparently, & they don't even have to sign a register. They appear to be able to restrain themselves quite well however, because there haven't been any more child abductions since Maddie.
-
Anyway. Back to the topic at hand. The McCanns defeat at the ECHR. They would have won if not for the lies in the files. Eddie never alerted to cadaver odour. It's not a proven fact that he did. But then, there's still no sign of a living Maddie either. So maybe he just did.
-
The strange logic of sceptics who assume that one child abduction always heralds the arrival of a whole spate of them in the same area. If Madeleine was taken by Christian Bruckner, the fact that the world's eyes swivelled to his back yard (figuratively speaking) for the remainder of the time he was in the country might be one reason why he decided abducting another child from PdL might not be such a good idea. But of course only a genius would be able to work this out and one thing sceptics tend not to be is that blessed in the logic department, poor things...
-
The strange logic of sceptics who assume that one child abduction always heralds the arrival of a whole spate of them in the same area. If Madeleine was taken by Christian Bruckner, the fact that the world's eyes swivelled to his back yard (figuratively speaking) for the remainder of the time he was in the country might be one reason why he decided abducting another child from PdL might not be such a good idea. But of course only a genius would be able to work this out and one thing sceptics tend not to be is that blessed in the logic department, poor things...
If Madeleine was taken by Brueckner? That's funny. Is there any good reason to believe she was?
-
The email is an irrelevance.
As you know Amaral was sacked from Madeleine's case, transferred and demoted as a direct result of being caught giving classified information relating to an active investigation directly to a journalist
He was punished for this very obvious breach of the law.
If that's what he did. Criticising the UK police may have been his 'crime'.
-
If that's what he did. Criticising the UK police may have been his 'crime'.
Is that a punishable offence in Portugal?
-
If that's what he did. Criticising the UK police may have been his 'crime'.
Whatever it was he did it resulted in him being sacked from his senior post in the high profile missing child investigation taking place. It merited him losing his job as chief in Portomao. It resulted in him losing rank and being demoted to some backwater.
Quite a sequence of events for as you suggest is a "trivial crime". Wonder why his bosses felt justified in doing that to him ~ might be worth your while to cast a passing thought on that one.
-
If Amaral was deomoted for criticising the UK police he should have takenhis case to the ECHR as they are shit hot when it comes to upholding his right to say what he likes.
-
I thought that Freedom of Speech carried responsibilities. Amaral's book would never be published in Britain because it is Libellous.
Does this not work in Portugal?
Silly me. Of course it doesn't.
-
I thought that Freedom of Speech carried responsibilities. Amaral's book would never be published in Britain because it is Libellous.
Does this not work in Portugal?
Silly me. Of course it doesn't.
Amaral's book wasn't published in the UK because publisher's weren't going to take that risk imo. Nobody knew if it was libellous or not. Just because the McCanns said it was didn't make it true.
-
I thought that Freedom of Speech carried responsibilities. Amaral's book would never be published in Britain because it is Libellous.
Does this not work in Portugal?
Silly me. Of course it doesn't.
Amaral's book was based on the files, which were made public by the state of Portugal & are available to view by anyone with access to the interweb. Do you believe the case files are libellous also?
-
Amaral's book wasn't published in the UK because publisher's weren't going to take that risk imo. Nobody knew if it was libellous or not. Just because the McCanns said it was didn't make it true.
You obviously don't understand libel and speak from a position of total ignorance.
Amaral would have no defence against libel in the UK...if you imagine he would..tell us what it is...all fact..not opinion
-
Amaral's book wasn't published in the UK because publisher's weren't going to take that risk imo. Nobody knew if it was libellous or not. Just because the McCanns said it was didn't make it true.
How can you possibly doubt the McCanns?
-
You obviously don't understand libel and speak from a position of total ignorance.
Amaral would have no defence against libel in the UK...if you imagine he would..tell us what it is...all fact..not opinion
What if the case files belonged to & were made public by the state of Britain?
Could he have published it then?
-
Amaral's book wasn't published in the UK because publisher's weren't going to take that risk imo. Nobody knew if it was libellous or not. Just because the McCanns said it was didn't make it true.
What IS true is that the McCanns are innocent in the eyes of the law, that’s all that counts. Amaral would have to defend his daft theory in this country with some actual evidence which he and his publisher would struggle with and hence would lose any libel case brought in this country.
-
What IS true is that the McCanns are innocent in the eyes of the law, that’s all that counts. Amaral would have to defend his daft theory in this country with some actual evidence which he and his publisher would struggle with and hence would lose any libel case brought in this country.
To illustrate your point ~ there is no English language edition of the books in which he libels the McCanns.
-
What IS true is that the McCanns are innocent in the eyes of the law, that’s all that counts. Amaral would have to defend his daft theory in this country with some actual evidence which he and his publisher would struggle with and hence would lose any libel case brought in this country.
What IS true is that Christian Brueckner is innocent in the eyes of the law, that’s all that counts. Wolters would have to defend his daft theory in this country with some actual evidence which he and his publisher would struggle with and hence would lose any libel case brought in this country.
-
You obviously don't understand libel and speak from a position of total ignorance.
Amaral would have no defence against libel in the UK...if you imagine he would..tell us what it is...all fact..not opinion
Says the expert.
-
Says the expert.
As expected you can't give any logical answer....I'll ask again reinforce your ignorance...
What defense would amaral have against a libel claim......his book would be deemed libellous in the UK.
-
As expected you can't give any logical answer....I'll ask again reinforce your ignorance...
What defense would amaral have against a libel claim......his book would be deemed libellous in the UK.
Which is why some people kicked in with their own ideas of a translation. All of which were inaccurate in some way or another and where some of The Myths originated.
There was even one translated from Portuguese into French and then into English. And what a mess that one was.
-
As expected you can't give any logical answer....I'll ask again reinforce your ignorance...
What defense would amaral have against a libel claim......his book would be deemed libellous in the UK.
As expected you give no information explaining why you think the book would have been found libellous in the UK. Instead you choose to challenge me to explain why I think it wasn't. I didn't say it wasn't, though, my opinion was that there could be other reasons why no publisher published it. Who needed the hassle that would clearly follow?
-
How can you possibly doubt the McCanns?
Well they complained loud and long about Amaral's libelous book, but were unable to prove it in accordance with Portuguese law. Maybe the same result would have occurred under English law, especially after 2013 when the defence of 'fair comment' was abolished and replaced by 'honest opinion'.
-
As expected you give no information explaining why you think the book would have been found libellous in the UK. Instead you choose to challenge me to explain why I think it wasn't. I didn't say it wasn't, though, my opinion was that there could be other reasons why no publisher published it. Who needed the hassle that would clearly follow?
Who needed the money might be more to the point. Anyone interested was scrambling to get some sort of translation so a fair few Books could have been sold.
No explanation is required for why the Book would have been found Libellous, so that is a very silly question. Have you no conception of The Laws of Libel in Britain? Freedom of Speech is not absolute.
-
Well they complained loud and long about Amaral's libelous book, but were unable to prove it in accordance with Portuguese law. Maybe the same result would have occurred under English law, especially after 2013 when the defence of 'fair comment' was abolished and replaced by 'honest opinion'.
"Portuguese Law." And we all know what that amounts to. And since Amaral was not an honest man then his honest opinion would have been worth nothing in a British Court.
-
What IS true is that the McCanns are innocent in the eyes of the law, that’s all that counts. Amaral would have to defend his daft theory in this country with some actual evidence which he and his publisher would struggle with and hence would lose any libel case brought in this country.
Why was he unable to claim honest opinion?
-
To illustrate your point ~ there is no English language edition of the books in which he libels the McCanns.
Under which law has he been found guilty of libelling the McCanns?
Or are you posting your opinion as a fact?
-
Who needed the money might be more to the point. Anyone interested was scrambling to get some sort of translation so a fair few Books could have been sold.
No explanation is required for why the Book would have been found Libellous, so that is a very silly question. Have you no conception of The Laws of Libel in Britain? Freedom of Speech is not absolute.
Freedom of speech isn't absolute in Portugal either, but in this case the McCanns were unable to prove that Amaral's was restricted. Both the UK and Portugal are required to abide by ECHR law, so why would the book be cleared by Portugal and the ECHR but found guilty by the UK courts?
-
Why was he unable to claim honest opinion?
He could have claimed whatever he liked, the fact that he didn't even attempt to get his book published in this country (potentially its biggest market) tells you everything you need to know.
-
Why was he unable to claim honest opinion?
Because Amaral isn't an honest man. A conviction for Perjury alone proves that.
-
Freedom of speech isn't absolute in Portugal either, but in this case the McCanns were unable to prove that Amaral's was restricted. Both the UK and Portugal are required to abide by ECHR law, so why would the book be cleared by Portugal and the ECHR but found guilty by the UK courts?
I understand precisely why...I'm not surprised you dont
-
Freedom of speech isn't absolute in Portugal either, but in this case the McCanns were unable to prove that Amaral's was restricted. Both the UK and Portugal are required to abide by ECHR law, so why would the book be cleared by Portugal and the ECHR but found guilty by the UK courts?
Another silly question. So why wasn't The Book published in Britain? You surely must have an answer for that. Publishers don't turn down profit for a bit of fun.
-
He could have claimed whatever he liked, the fact that he didn't even attempt to get his book published in this country (potentially its biggest market) tells you everything you need to know.
I think he might have tried, but the details escape me after so long. But whatever which way, it didn't happen. Perhaps someone pointed out that he had too many convictions for dishonesty.
-
Freedom of speech isn't absolute in Portugal either, but in this case the McCanns were unable to prove that Amaral's was restricted. Both the UK and Portugal are required to abide by ECHR law, so why would the book be cleared by Portugal and the ECHR but found guilty by the UK courts?
The McCann's lawyers did not challenge the facts..probably because it wasn't initially a libel trial
In any future libel trial the factsvwiukd be examined
-
Because Amaral isn't an honest man. A conviction for Perjury alone proves that.
Amaral's book was clearly an opinion as was the McCanns' abduction opinion. Neither could be proved correct or not. He didn't accuse them, the PJ investigation did and he said he still held the same opinions and explained why.
-
Amaral's book was clearly an opinion as was the McCanns' abduction opinion. Neither could be proved correct or not. He didn't accuse them, the PJ investigation did and he said he still held the same opinions and explained why.
Amaral's Book isn't clearly an opinion to me. In My Opinion.
The McCann's stance is either The Truth or A Lie. It is not an Opinion. In My Opinion. But there has never been any proof that it is A Lie. So please don't assume. Either The McCanns lied or they didn't. You appear to think that The McCanns Lied. I think that they didn't Lie. So these opinions lie only between thee and me. But you have no proof and I don't need any proof.
-
Under which law has he been found guilty of libelling the McCanns?
Or are you posting your opinion as a fact?
Do please read my post again, but this time give it some pertinent thought.
You've latched onto my reply to VS and I really find it hard to believe your ignorance of what may constitute libel.
I posted - "To illustrate your point ~ there is no English language edition of the books in which he libels the McCanns."
I'll give you a hint by asking you to ponder why there was no English Language translation of Amaral's books published for distribution and sale in Britain.
-
Amaral's Book isn't clearly an opinion to me. In My Opinion.
The McCann's stance is either The Truth or A Lie. It is not an Opinion. In My Opinion. But there has never been any proof that it is A Lie. So please don't assume. Either The McCanns lied or they didn't. You appear to think that The McCanns Lied. I think that they didn't Lie. So these opinions lie only between thee and me. But you have no proof and I don't need any proof.
Well the Portuguese courts and the ECHR ruled that Amaral's book was an opinion, so what you think is irrelevant. It was also pointed out that the last word by the Portuguese authorities was that the crime wasn't known.
The situation in the UK is slightly different in that an ongoing investigation into stranger abduction exists. No-one knows why that is so, but it's not suceeded in finding a guilty party and neither has anyone else. The McCanns could ask Operation Grange to testify with their proof that it was stranger abduction, but I very much doubt they would do so. Even if they did, there's nothing to prevent people from disagreeing, especially in a book published in 2008.
-
Well the Portuguese courts and the ECHR ruled that Amaral's book was an opinion, so what you think is irrelevant. It was also pointed out that the last word by the Portuguese authorities was that the crime wasn't known.
The situation in the UK is slightly different in that an ongoing investigation into stranger abduction exists. No-one knows why that is so, but it's not suceeded in finding a guilty party and neither has anyone else. The McCanns could ask Operation Grange to testify with their proof that it was stranger abduction, but I very much doubt they would do so. Even if they did, there's nothing to prevent people from disagreeing, especially in a book published in 2008.
I don't think we have heard the "last word" from the Portuguese authorities if the constitution of Brueckner as arguido in a crime against Madeleine is taken into consideration.
-
Well the Portuguese courts and the ECHR ruled that Amaral's book was an opinion, so what you think is irrelevant. It was also pointed out that the last word by the Portuguese authorities was that the crime wasn't known.
The situation in the UK is slightly different in that an ongoing investigation into stranger abduction exists. No-one knows why that is so, but it's not suceeded in finding a guilty party and neither has anyone else. The McCanns could ask Operation Grange to testify with their proof that it was stranger abduction, but I very much doubt they would do so. Even if they did, there's nothing to prevent people from disagreeing, especially in a book published in 2008.
The McCann's stance is not an Opinion. It is either A Lie or it is The Truth. Why can you not understand this?
-
I don't think we have heard the "last word" from the Portuguese authorities if the constitution of Brueckner as arguido in a crime against Madeleine is taken into consideration.
And then there is that Fact. Portugal must have some evidence against Brueckner. Or not, as the case may be.
-
Amaral's book was clearly an opinion as was the McCanns' abduction opinion. Neither could be proved correct or not. He didn't accuse them, the PJ investigation did and he said he still held the same opinions and explained why.
You really are showing your total ignorance.
Anaral claimed he could prove Maddie died in the apartment...based in the dog alerts.
You must be daft if you can't see that's undefendable libel.
-
There's a lot of opinions being aired, but in fact no-one knows how a court case will end until the evidence is heard and a decision is reached.
-
Stop posting absolute junk...typical uninformed sceptic
-
There's a lot of opinions being aired, but in fact no-one knows how a court case will end until the evidence is heard and a decision is reached.
Why do you think no one picked up the UK publishing rights for what had the potential to be a best seller in a far larger marketplace than Portugal? Was it because Amaral was fed up if making so much money and milking Madeleine’s disappearance do you think?
-
Stop posting absolute junk...typical uninformed sceptic
Typical supporter, mistaking his opinions for knowledge.
-
Why do you think no one picked up the UK publishing rights for what had the potential to be a best seller in a far larger marketplace than Portugal? Was it because Amaral was fed up if making so much money and milking Madeleine’s disappearance do you think?
As I said, too much hassle. Maybe Amaral wasn't as bothered about making money as you think.
-
Just for the record. The last time I looked, Madeleine was still missing and her fate still unknown.
In that case, all cards are still on the table!
-
Typical supporter, mistaking his opinions for knowledge.
Your posts are getting so detached from reality they're not worth bothering with. You've been in meltdown since CB became prime suspect and the SOL now permanently excludes the mccanns
-
Just for the record. The last time I looked, Madeleine was still missing and her fate still unknown.
In that case, all cards are still on the table!
Do you understand the SOL excludes the McCann's. The last time I looked CB was the only suspect with the BKA saying that were 100% sure he murdered Maddie. None of what you claim would provide any libel defence in the UK for amaral
-
Just for the record. The last time I looked, Madeleine was still missing and her fate still unknown.
In that case, all cards are still on the table!
Some players have been permanently eliminated though and a fresh player has been given the seat he left behind in 2007.
-
Some players have been permanently eliminated though and a fresh player has been given the seat he left behind in 2007.
I agree with John. No explanation for Madeleine's fate has been proved to be correct.
-
I agree with John. No explanation for Madeleine's fate has been proved to be correct.
That doesnt mean all options are still on the table.....i thimk thats aclled grasping at straws. ...by John too. Neither of you can come to terms with the fact that Amaral and Grime and his dogs were wrong
-
As I said, too much hassle. Maybe Amaral wasn't as bothered about making money as you think.
What hassle? According to you he was only expressing his opinion so what’s the problem?
-
Just for the record. The last time I looked, Madeleine was still missing and her fate still unknown.
In that case, all cards are still on the table!
So you think Murat might still be involved then?
-
I agree with John. No explanation for Madeleine's fate has been proved to be correct.
We can agree that Madeleine remains missing.
Perhaps the defining difference is that I think it is a good idea to keep up the impetus of looking for her and as far as possible to locate or find out what did happen to her. At the moment there is evidence available to do just that ... if there wasn't don't think for a minute that her case would still be an active one.
-
That doesnt mean all options are still on the table.....i thimk thats aclled grasping at straws. ...by John too. Neither of you can come to terms with the fact that Amaral and Grime and his dogs were wrong
I don't know what happened to Madeleine, but I don't think anyone can declare with certainty that some things are wrong. That's an opinion, not a fact.
-
What hassle? According to you he was only expressing his opinion so what’s the problem?
Do you think that Amaral enjoyed being sued in Portugal by the McCanns so much that he would be eager to submit to the same treatment in the UK?
-
I don't know what happened to Madeleine, but I don't think anyone can declare with certainty that some things are wrong. That's an opinion, not a fact.
it is not proven the alerts were to cadaver
the dogs never solved 200 caes
eddie never found a body under conctete in Jersey
the dogs never had a 100% record
None of tyhe evidence used to make the mccanns arguidos was ever confirmed. when being made arguidos it was a legal requirement the mccanns were informed of any evidence against them.
The McCanns are no longer susopects in the investigation and due to the SOl can neevr be investigate or charged
SY have no jurisdiction to investigate or question the mccanns as suspects in the case
CB is the onlt suspect.
Wolters claims the evidence aginst him is so strong that the german investigation is 100 % certain he murdered Maddie
Amaral and the PJ completely mmisunderstood the dog and forensic evidence
Theres afew FACTS for you....you need to wake up
-
Do you think that Amaral enjoyed being sued in Portugal by the McCanns so much that he would be eager to submit to the same treatment in the UK?
Why not? If for a penny in for a pound, lots of them potentially. He didn’t know when he published his book that he was going to be sued did he? So why no British publication from the start?
-
Why not? If for a penny in for a pound, lots of them potentially. He didn’t know when he published his book that he was going to be sued did he? So why no British publication from the start?
Mário Serra Lopes, from the editor Guerra e Paz, explains that, despite the interest that the case generated in the United Kingdom, no English editor has bought the rights over the work about the disappearance of Madeleine McCann yet.
“The English editors are afraid”, says the editor, who asserts that he has contacted several British editors, who “despite being interested in publishing, fear the McCanns’ influence and the consequences that it may have after the publication”.
https://themaddiecasefiles.com/english-lawyers-refuse-to-defend-gon-alo-amaral-so-t24374.html#p321894
-
It has been mooted that Britain should ditch The ECHR. And from what I have seen this sounds like a good idea.
-
Mário Serra Lopes, from the editor Guerra e Paz, explains that, despite the interest that the case generated in the United Kingdom, no English editor has bought the rights over the work about the disappearance of Madeleine McCann yet.
“The English editors are afraid”, says the editor, who asserts that he has contacted several British editors, who “despite being interested in publishing, fear the McCanns’ influence and the consequences that it may have after the publication”.
https://themaddiecasefiles.com/english-lawyers-refuse-to-defend-gon-alo-amaral-so-t24374.html#p321894
And yet with hindsight it appears everyone in Amaral’s camp knew the law was on his side all along, funny that! As I suggested earlier, no British publisher would touch such a libellous piece of crap with a bargepole and for very good reason. They wouldn’t have stood a chance in an English court.
-
It has been mooted that Britain should ditch The ECHR. And from what I have seen this sounds like a good idea.
I think not, but fortunately for you, you live in France which will not leave the ECHR, so you needn't worry about that particular UK government stupidity.
-
Mário Serra Lopes, from the editor Guerra e Paz, explains that, despite the interest that the case generated in the United Kingdom, no English editor has bought the rights over the work about the disappearance of Madeleine McCann yet.
“The English editors are afraid”, says the editor, who asserts that he has contacted several British editors, who “despite being interested in publishing, fear the McCanns’ influence and the consequences that it may have after the publication”.
https://themaddiecasefiles.com/english-lawyers-refuse-to-defend-gon-alo-amaral-so-t24374.html#p321894
What’s very interesting about your link that it was Amaral threatening to sue the McCanns and bandying about accusations of defamation before the McCanns commenced their legal action against him!
-
Mário Serra Lopes, from the editor Guerra e Paz, explains that, despite the interest that the case generated in the United Kingdom, no English editor has bought the rights over the work about the disappearance of Madeleine McCann yet.
“The English editors are afraid”, says the editor, who asserts that he has contacted several British editors, who “despite being interested in publishing, fear the McCanns’ influence and the consequences that it may have after the publication”.
https://themaddiecasefiles.com/english-lawyers-refuse-to-defend-gon-alo-amaral-so-t24374.html#p321894
Frightened of being sued because teh book is clearly libellous. As for not being able to find a lawyer to sue...total BS...but you are will ing to beleive anything taht suits you. As longas lawyer is paid..he'll act
-
I think not, but fortunately for you, you live in France which will not leave the ECHR, so you needn't worry about that particular UK government stupidity.
France pleases itself. France hasn't signed The Protocol.
-
France pleases itself. France hasn't signed The Protocol.
Which protocol?
-
Which protocol?
Google it.
-
Google it.
I did. Were you referring to Protocol 15?
The new time-limit will enter into force on 1 February 2022. Protocol No. 15 to the Convention entered into force on 1 August 2021, as all the States Parties have now signed and ratified it.
https://www.echr.coe.int/Pages/home.aspx?p=basictexts&c#:~:text=The%20new%20time%2Dlimit%20will,now%20signed%20and%20ratified%20it.
-
Which protocol?
How to riot.
-
it is not proven the alerts were to cadaver
the dogs never solved 200 caes
eddie never found a body under conctete in Jersey
the dogs never had a 100% record
None of tyhe evidence used to make the mccanns arguidos was ever confirmed. when being made arguidos it was a legal requirement the mccanns were informed of any evidence against them.
The McCanns are no longer susopects in the investigation and due to the SOl can neevr be investigate or charged
SY have no jurisdiction to investigate or question the mccanns as suspects in the case
CB is the onlt suspect.
Wolters claims the evidence aginst him is so strong that the german investigation is 100 % certain he murdered Maddie
Amaral and the PJ completely mmisunderstood the dog and forensic evidence
Theres afew FACTS for you....you need to wake up
Remember to get back to us when the three expert investigative forces prove abduction. It shouldn't be much longer now.
-
it is not proven the alerts were to cadaver
the dogs never solved 200 caes
eddie never found a body under conctete in Jersey
the dogs never had a 100% record
None of tyhe evidence used to make the mccanns arguidos was ever confirmed. when being made arguidos it was a legal requirement the mccanns were informed of any evidence against them.
The McCanns are no longer susopects in the investigation and due to the SOl can neevr be investigate or charged
SY have no jurisdiction to investigate or question the mccanns as suspects in the case
CB is the onlt suspect.
Wolters claims the evidence aginst him is so strong that the german investigation is 100 % certain he murdered Maddie
Amaral and the PJ completely mmisunderstood the dog and forensic evidence
Theres afew FACTS for you....you need to wake up
Your opinions aren't the same as mine, no matter how many times you repeat them.
-
Your opinions aren't the same as mine, no matter how many times you repeat them.
That was a list of facts, not opinions.
-
Your opinions aren't the same as mine, no matter how many times you repeat them.
Theyre facts,not opinions..stop telling blatant lies or I will call you out as,a,liar.
Cite for any that are opinions..cite required
-
Mário Serra Lopes, from the editor Guerra e Paz, explains that, despite the interest that the case generated in the United Kingdom, no English editor has bought the rights over the work about the disappearance of Madeleine McCann yet.
“The English editors are afraid”, says the editor, who asserts that he has contacted several British editors, who “despite being interested in publishing, fear the McCanns’ influence and the consequences that it may have after the publication”.
https://themaddiecasefiles.com/english-lawyers-refuse-to-defend-gon-alo-amaral-so-t24374.html#p321894
Are you reliant on members not reading your links - or is it another instance of - you not reading them or
- you having read them and not liking what they are saying misrepresenting the content
Whatever - my opinion is that it makes your postings absolutely untrustworthy. Not to mention why you bother going to the extent of so doing.
English lawyers refuse to defend Gonçalo Amaral
Sol online edition, 04.08.2008 | translated by astro
Madeleine McCann case
by Margarida Davim
Gonçalo Amaral wants to sue the English newspapers and the McCanns over defamation, but he cannot find lawyers that are willing to represent him in the British courts. The editor that published the book ‘The Truth of the Lie’ also guarantees that “the English editors are afraid” of putting the book on sale in the United Kingdom
After having been accused in the pages of the English newspapers of being “drunk” and “incompetent”, Gonçalo Amaral wants to sue the journalists and the parents of Madeleine McCann over defamation. But taking the case to the British courts is revealing itself to be an impossible mission.
“I have been trying for months to find a lawyer in England to represent me”, the former inspector from the Polícia Judiciária told SOL, guaranteeing that he is trying to find “other ways” to sue the McCanns and the English tabloids.
https://themaddiecasefiles.com/english-lawyers-refuse-to-defend-gon-alo-amaral-so-t24374.html#p321894
That's a very cherry picking account you have chosen to post which at the least misrepresents the current forum discussion.
I think that's a bit desperate.
-
And yet with hindsight it appears everyone in Amaral’s camp knew the law was on his side all along, funny that! As I suggested earlier, no British publisher would touch such a libellous piece of crap with a bargepole and for very good reason. They wouldn’t have stood a chance in an English court.
If Amaral was defending the alleged "mistreatment" at the hands of the British press, I think he probably discovered that if the allegations were true he would have difficulty finding a lawyer to represent him.
That is if there was any veracity in the tabloid report to begin with. Sure were there not numerous reports of him taking various actions against various folk? For example, the Policia Judiciaria. He did actually sue the Cipriano lawyer as well as trying to have him committed to an insane asylum. He lost his case.
-
What’s very interesting about your link that it was Amaral threatening to sue the McCanns and bandying about accusations of defamation before the McCanns commenced their legal action against him!
In the event the McCanns did not take action against Amaral until it became apparent to them that his media shenanigans were damaging the case they were fighting on Madeleine's behalf.
-
If Amaral was defending the alleged "mistreatment" at the hands of the British press, I think he probably discovered that if the allegations were true he would have difficulty finding a lawyer to represent him.
That is if there was any veracity in the tabloid report to begin with. Sure were there not numerous reports of him taking various actions against various folk? For example, the Policia Judiciaria. He did actually sue the Cipriano lawyer as well as trying to have him committed to an insane asylum. He lost his case.
Libel is different in the UK...he would have no difficulty finding a lawyer if he had a case. It's likely no lawyer would take his case because he doesn't have grounds to sue and doesn't have the money to pay
-
Libel is different in the UK...he would have no difficulty finding a lawyer if he had a case. It's likely no lawyer would take his case because he doesn't have grounds to sue and doesn't have the money to pay
Neither are publishers going to be queuing up to publish any book containing the number of factual errors and lies that are contained in the "truth of the lie".
That possibly includes the makers of Calpol.
Not forgetting that libel trials tend to take a dim view of libellous innuendo.
-
Are you reliant on members not reading your links - or is it another instance of - you not reading them or
- you having read them and not liking what they are saying misrepresenting the content
Whatever - my opinion is that it makes your postings absolutely untrustworthy. Not to mention why you bother going to the extent of so doing.
English lawyers refuse to defend Gonçalo Amaral
Sol online edition, 04.08.2008 | translated by astro
Madeleine McCann case
by Margarida Davim
Gonçalo Amaral wants to sue the English newspapers and the McCanns over defamation, but he cannot find lawyers that are willing to represent him in the British courts. The editor that published the book ‘The Truth of the Lie’ also guarantees that “the English editors are afraid” of putting the book on sale in the United Kingdom
After having been accused in the pages of the English newspapers of being “drunk” and “incompetent”, Gonçalo Amaral wants to sue the journalists and the parents of Madeleine McCann over defamation. But taking the case to the British courts is revealing itself to be an impossible mission.
“I have been trying for months to find a lawyer in England to represent me”, the former inspector from the Polícia Judiciária told SOL, guaranteeing that he is trying to find “other ways” to sue the McCanns and the English tabloids.
https://themaddiecasefiles.com/english-lawyers-refuse-to-defend-gon-alo-amaral-so-t24374.html#p321894
That's a very cherry picking account you have chosen to post which at the least misrepresents the current forum discussion.
I think that's a bit desperate.
I posted the part which applied to the discussion I was taking part in, which was why wasn't Amaral's book published in the UK.
Do you never get fed up with accusing others? It's sooo boring.
-
I posted the part which applied to the discussion I was taking part in, which was why wasn't Amaral's book published in the UK.
Do you never get fed up with accusing others? It's sooo boring.
OMG, hahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
-
I posted the part which applied to the discussion I was taking part in, which was why wasn't Amaral's book published in the UK.
Do you never get fed up with accusing others? It's sooo boring.
It really shouldn't be necessary for me or anyone else for that matter to have to repeatedly to point out the obfuscations you post. Unfortunately though, it is.
I agree it is boring to have to do so ... I think it is the utter predictability and regularity of your misalignments which that does it for me.
-
It really shouldn't be necessary for me or anyone else for that matter to have to repeatedly to point out the obfuscations you post. Unfortunately though, it is.
I agree it is boring to have to do so ... I think it is the utter predictability and regularity of your misalignments which that does it for me.
Just give it a rest, Brietta. I will post what I want, on any subject I wish and I don't think it's your job to judge me.
-
I posted the part which applied to the discussion I was taking part in, which was why wasn't Amaral's book published in the UK.
Do you never get fed up with accusing others? It's sooo boring.
Worth noting that again your accusation of me "accusing others" (I suppose of impropriety??) is entirely wrong. Unless you can substantiate it?
As far as I am concerned - there is only one member whose posting style raises any concerns about accuracy or inaccuracy and that would be yourself.
-
Just give it a rest, Brietta. I will post what I want, on any subject I wish and I don't think it's your job to judge me.
Absolutely post on any subject you wish - that's what posting on a discussion forum entails. Just ensure what you post is as accurate as it can be. That is expected of all members inclusive of you and me both.
Unfortunately, you've got it wrong yet again, though.
Please note ~ it IS my job to be judgemental. It is why I am allowed to amend other members' posts with fairness and to sometimes delete them for one reason or another. This is a job I do take quite seriously and tend not to indulge in meaningless fishwife brawls as a result.
-
Worth noting that again your accusation of me "accusing others" (I suppose of impropriety??) is entirely wrong. Unless you can substantiate it?
Introducing the first witness for the defence. I can certainly substantiate G’s claim.
-
Worth noting that again your accusation of me "accusing others" (I suppose of impropriety??) is entirely wrong. Unless you can substantiate it?
As far as I am concerned - there is only one member whose posting style raises any concerns about accuracy or inaccuracy and that would be yourself.
That's a hilarious statement. My style is my style, and if you can't understand it I suggest you try harder.
-
Introducing the first witness for the defence. I can certainly substantiate G’s claim.
Thanks. 8((()*/
-
Anyway. Enough bickering, let's get back to the topic at hand. The McCanns humiliating defeat at the ECHR.
-
Your opinions aren't the same as mine, no matter how many times you repeat them.
Everything I've posted is factual.
-
Personally, I prefer not to insult anyone. But it is mortal hard at times.
-
Your opinions aren't the same as mine, no matter how many times you repeat them.
Everything ive posted is factual. Cite required fir anytgung that is not fact...cite,required..do not delete this post
-
Personally, I prefer not to insult anyone. But it is mortal hard at times.
I'm sorry but it was gunit which insisted it was acceptable to accuse posters of lying
-
I'm sorry but it was gunit which insisted it was acceptable to accuse posters of lying
Only if proof was supplied. If you believe I'm lying, for example, you need to show proof.
-
I'm sorry but it was gunit which insisted it was acceptable to accuse posters of lying
I am not entirely in disagreement with you. I have seen and personally received far worse from various Sceptics than anything that you have said.
-
Only if proof was supplied. If you believe I'm lying, for example, you need to show proof.
Proof in whos opinion..who decides if proof is supplied.
You know that there is no proof that the dog alerted ti cadaver..that is a,fact..you know it's a fact..si if you call it an opinion you are a liar..how's that
-
Only if proof was supplied. If you believe I'm lying, for example, you need to show proof.
I have requested "proof" substantiating the accusation you have levelled against me. You haven't done so and I have lost interest anyway ;)
-
I have requested "proof" substantiating the accusation you have levelled against me. You haven't done so and I have lost interest anyway ;)
Source for The Goose, etcetera.
-
Only if proof was supplied. If you believe I'm lying, for example, you need to show proof.
ive supplied proof...now you need to reinstated all the posts youve edited. you will not get away with this. you have lied and ive proved it. you are the poster who insisted that calling someone a liar was acceptable
-
ive supplied proof...now you need to reinstated all the posts youve edited. you will not get away with this. you have lied and ive proved it. you are the poster who insisted that calling someone a liar was acceptable
You have not supplied proof that I have lied. If you think you have then show it.
-
You have not supplied proof that I have lied. If you think you have then show it.
I would prefer to call it Twisting the Facts and Cherry Picking. You know very well what you do But each to his own if and when replying.
However, my days of tolerating bullying are done.
-
I would prefer to call it Twisting the Facts and Cherry Picking. You know very well what you do But each to his own if and when replying.
However, my days of tolerating bullying are done.
Have you decided to clarify which protocol France hasn't signed yet?
That's good news about bullying...maybe. I have often identified attempts to bully me, but I seriously doubt that you would see it as I do.
-
The proof is the fact that the dog alerts were included in the civil trial and judged to be proven facts..that's evidence from a criminal investigation used in a civil trial in Portugal.
The proven facts in the initial trial in Jan 2015 do not reference the alerts.
The only lie is you claiming you understand..you're all over the place with contradictions
It's quite possible Kate misunderstood
The bolded bit is not true!!!!!
Page 9
PROVEN FACTS
6. The British police dogs “Eddie” and “Keela” detected human blood and cadaver in the apartment 5A, Ocean Club [alínea AR) of the undisputed facts].
7. The British police dogs “Eddie” and “Keela” detected human blood and cadaver in a vehicle rented by the claimants after the disappearance of MMC [alínea AS) of the undisputed facts].
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=6307.0
-
ive supplied proof...now you need to reinstated all the posts youve edited. you will not get away with this. you have lied and ive proved it. you are the poster who insisted that calling someone a liar was acceptable
I've repeated my post showing how and when you lied. When you repeat your proof of my lies we can perhaps move forward.
-
Perhaps everyone could stop bandying about accusations of lying and just accept that sometimes people can be mistaken?
-
Have you decided to clarify which protocol France hasn't signed yet?
That's good news about bullying...maybe. I have often identified attempts to bully me, but I seriously doubt that you would see it as I do.
The First Protocol. After that it's anyone's game. But France won't tolerate the interference of anyone.
That which you appear not to understand is that The ECHR is nothing to do with The European Union, who may or may not decide to comply. The ECHR has no power to enforce anything.
-
The bolded bit is not true!!!!!
Page 9
PROVEN FACTS
6. The British police dogs “Eddie” and “Keela” detected human blood and cadaver in the apartment 5A, Ocean Club [alínea AR) of the undisputed facts].
7. The British police dogs “Eddie” and “Keela” detected human blood and cadaver in a vehicle rented by the claimants after the disappearance of MMC [alínea AS) of the undisputed facts].
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=6307.0
Well, that's a load of Fibs.
-
The First Protocol. After that it's anyone's game. But France won't tolerate the interference of anyone.
That which you appear not to understand is that The ECHR is nothing to do with The European Union, who may or may not decide to comply. The ECHR has no power to enforce anything.
I believe that one of the rules of the EU is that member states must belong to the ECHR
-
I believe that one of the rules of the EU is that member states must belong to the ECHR
This is not True.
-
I've repeated my post showing how and when you lied. When you repeat your proof of my lies we can perhaps move forward.
you have not shown any proof of me lying. A lie is when you say something taht you know to be untrue. The proven facts in the first trial did not initially contain the dog alerts...therefore i did not lie and you havent supplied proof
-
You have not supplied proof that I have lied. If you think you have then show it.
i posted
You know that there is no proof that the dog alerted ti cadaver..that is a,fact..you know it's a fact..si if you call it an opinion you are a liar..how's that
Theres proof. All the other facts are posted im convinced you know they are true.. yet you call them opinions not facts...so tahts proof of lies.
-
I still don't understand why The ECHR are not interested in Factual Proof. What is the point of this misbegotten Court?
-
I still don't understand why The ECHR are not interested in Factual Proof. What is the point of this misbegotten Court?
The ECHR accept the proof as decided by the Portuguese courts...the action was not decided originally as a libel decision si the facts were not challenged. As I've said I blame the McCann's lawyers.
The alerts were not part if the original proven facts in the initial trial. That's a fact but gunit s called me a liar. They then becane part if the proven facts later
-
The First Protocol. After that it's anyone's game. But France won't tolerate the interference of anyone.
That which you appear not to understand is that The ECHR is nothing to do with The European Union, who may or may not decide to comply. The ECHR has no power to enforce anything.
I can't find anything about a first protocol, but some countries haven't signed Protocol 12 of the ECHR;
The Protocol entered into force on 1 April 2005 and has (as of March 2018) been ratified by 20 member states. Several member states—Bulgaria, Denmark, France, Lithuania, Monaco, Poland, Sweden, Switzerland, and the United Kingdom—have not signed the protocol.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Convention_on_Human_Rights#:~:text=The%20Protocol%20entered%20into%20force,have%20not%20signed%20the%20protocol.
-
Well, that's a load of Fibs.
That's your opinion. It's a fact, however, that it was included in the first judgement.
-
Perhaps everyone could stop bandying about accusations of lying and just accept that sometimes people can be mistaken?
I agree wholeheartedly, but people need to admit to their mistakes.
-
you have not shown any proof of me lying. A lie is when you say something taht you know to be untrue. The proven facts in the first trial did not initially contain the dog alerts...therefore i did not lie and you havent supplied proof
Ah, but that's not what you said, is it? You said the text about the dog alerts didn't appear in the judgement.
-
That's your opinion. It's a fact, however, that it was included in the first judgement.
It's not opinion it's fact..thsts a lie by you.
Proof...alert to cadaver is not a fact....and it's a lie by you to contradict that claim...
-
Ah, but that's not what you said, is it? You said the text about the dog alerts didn't appear in the judgement.
Cite..it isn't what I said
-
The ECHR accept the proof as decided by the Portuguese courts...the action was not decided originally as a libel decision si the facts were not challenged. As I've said I blame the McCann's lawyers.
The alerts were not part if the original proven facts in the initial trial. That's a fact but gunit s called me a liar. They then becane part if the proven facts later
Hmm. What a mess and a waste of time that was. So I still don't understand the purpose of The ECHR. They are only interested in Points of Law. And nothing to do with Human Rights and Actual Facts.
Sorry if I don't entirely follow your line of thought although I am sure that you are right in interpretation of how the judgement came about.
But where does defence of humanity come into this?
-
Hmm. What a mess and a waste of time that was. So I still don't understand the purpose of The ECHR. They are only interested in Points of Law. And nothing to do with Human Rights and Actual Facts.
Sorry if I don't entirely follow your line of thought although I am sure that you are right in interpretation of how the judgement came about.
But where does defence of humanity come into this?
It's up to the lawyers to present their case. The mccanns had a clear strong case based in the true facts of the case but the echr didn't look at the true facts..that isn't their job..they judge on the facts presented
-
i posted
You know that there is no proof that the dog alerted ti cadaver..that is a,fact..you know it's a fact..si if you call it an opinion you are a liar..how's that
Theres proof. All the other facts are posted im convinced you know they are true.. yet you call them opinions not facts...so tahts proof of lies.
There's no proof that the dog didn't alert to cadaver scent either.
-
I can't find anything about a first protocol, but some countries haven't signed Protocol 12 of the ECHR;
The Protocol entered into force on 1 April 2005 and has (as of March 2018) been ratified by 20 member states. Several member states—Bulgaria, Denmark, France, Lithuania, Monaco, Poland, Sweden, Switzerland, and the United Kingdom—have not signed the protocol.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Convention_on_Human_Rights#:~:text=The%20Protocol%20entered%20into%20force,have%20not%20signed%20the%20protocol.
Exactement. Need I say any more?
-
I agree wholeheartedly, but people need to admit to their mistakes.
This is gross impertinence.
-
I agree wholeheartedly, but people need to admit to their mistakes.
If you check my post there's nothing incorrect in it...you need to correct your mistake
-
This is not True.
Got a cite for that?
-
Got a cite for that?
I don't need a Cite, so please don't be too silly.
-
That's a stupid comment.
It's as valid as your comment.
-
I don't need a Cite, so please don't be too silly.
Why don't you need a cite- you state it as a fact ?
-
Why don't you need a cite- you state it as a fact ?
No where does it state that everyone in The European Union must join The ECHR. Unless you can find such a thing.
-
That's a stupid comment.
That's the last post you moderate of mine...you are,a total fool..if that's what I have to endure..being moderated by a fool I won't bother to post again..the forumo is a total waste if time
I agree. The forum is a waste of time. We should be working together to bring about world peace or finding a cure for cancer. All this arguing about dogs & lies & facts is getting us nowhere.
-
I agree. The forum is a waste of time. We should be working together to bring about world peace or finding a cure for cancer. All this arguing about dogs & lies & facts is getting us nowhere.
Certainly this thread has been a complete waste of space.
McCann took Portugal to ECHR. McCann lost. End of.
-
Certainly this thread has been a complete waste of space.
McCann took Portugal to ECHR. McCann lost. End of.
This isn't like you. You aren't normally gratuitously unpleasant.
-
This isn't like you. You aren't normally gratuitously unpleasant.
Which line - 1st or 2nd ? Both are correct - IMO
-
It's as valid as your comment.
the problem with forum rules is that you call me a liar and decide its reasonable as you judge youve provided proof...i call you a liar and you decide i havent provided proof...so the deisions are al based on your opinion....can you see how stupid that is
-
Which line - 1st or 2nd ? Both are correct - IMO
Never mind. Neither are important
-
The bolded bit is not true!!!!!
Page 9
PROVEN FACTS
6. The British police dogs “Eddie” and “Keela” detected human blood and cadaver in the apartment 5A, Ocean Club [alínea AR) of the undisputed facts].
7. The British police dogs “Eddie” and “Keela” detected human blood and cadaver in a vehicle rented by the claimants after the disappearance of MMC [alínea AS) of the undisputed facts].
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=6307.0
Your link refers to April..I said specifically Jan 15....at the start of the trial in Jan 15 there was a list if proven facts that did not include the alerts...I didn't lie and it's pathetic of you to suggest I did.
-
I really dint think a moderator should call another poster a liar
-
Please stop calling each other liars guys and stick to the facts.
I won't repeat this warning!
-
Please stop calling each other liars guys and stick to the facts.
I won't repeat this warning!
Could you ask gunit ti remove her post
-
Please stop calling each other liars guys and stick to the facts.
I won't repeat this warning!
Do you mean true facts or proven facts or facts that aren't really facts at all?