"the complaint of the claimants being rejected." What did that mean?

[Robittybob1]

what was rejected was the mccanns objection to the proven facts..imo

It is not on the list of proven facts unless both parties agree pretrial to the list of proven facts. 

[Robittybob1]

I think...based on the facts..you are wrong

Since there is a sizeable list of proven facts, using your argument, how can you be sure which of the proven facts is being disputed?

[Robittybob1]

probably best you just delete all my posts

Because you are losing the debate?

[Robittybob1]

amaral is not the claimant...the mccanns are

Used the wrong word.  I should have said Amaral the defendant.  My mistake.

[Robittybob1]

as its in the same sentence as the proven facts then their objection is too the proven facts

That is open to debate.

Whole sentence; "At the same hearing the undisputed facts were established and the instruction basis was structured, the complaint of the claimants being rejected."

[Carana]

I can't remember what the "complaint of the claimants" was about.

IMO, "undisputed"  can be ambiguous.

It may also be worth bearing in mind that that whole saga  was a civil case, not a  criminal one.

For example, unless there is doubt cast on an official document such as a birth or marriage certificate, or a bank statement there would be no reason to dispute  it.

On the other hand, if, in a civil case, an assertion is made in a police file, what's undisputed? The fact that an assertion about x, y or z is contained within the files, or whether the substance of the assertion is correct?

[Mr Gray]

I can't remember what the "complaint of the claimants" was about.

IMO, "undisputed"  can be ambiguous.

It may also be worth bearing in mind that that whole saga  was a civil case, not a  criminal one.

For example, unless there is doubt cast on an official document such as a birth or marriage certificate, or a bank statement there would be no reason to dispute  it.

On the other hand, if, in a civil case, an assertion is made in a police file, what's undisputed? The fact that an assertion about x, y or z is contained within the files, or whether the substance of the assertion is correct?

So still no clear understanding  of what proven or undisputed facts mean.  As I pointed out in the cipriano case it was part of the proven facts that Joannas bloodvwas found in the fridge even though it was never DNA tested

[sadie]

So still no clear understanding  of what proven or undisputed facts mean.  As I pointed out in the cipriano case it was part of the proven facts that Joannas bloodvwas found in the fridge even though it was never DNA tested

Neither does anyone know if it was even human blood; it could have been pig blood.

[Robittybob1]

Neither does anyone know if it was even human blood; it could have been pig blood.

The way I see it, if one side claims it is so and the other doesn't disagree it is an undisputed fact whether or not it is a scientifically  provable fact.

[Alice Purjorick]

The way I see it, if one side claims it is so and the other doesn't disagree it is an undisputed fact whether or not it is a scientifically  provable fact.

I think you will find that is a pretty good paraphrase of the legal definition 
What anyone else thinks is immaterial. It's only the warring factions who have a vote on it.

[Mr Gray]

The way I see it, if one side claims it is so and the other doesn't disagree it is an undisputed fact whether or not it is a scientifically  provable fact.

But thr McCann's would not have agreed

[barrier]

But thr McCann's would not have agreed

Their lawyers might have.

[Carana]

The way I see it, if one side claims it is so and the other doesn't disagree it is an undisputed fact whether or not it is a scientifically  provable fact.

I'm still not clear what the complaint concerned. If it was about the dogs' reliability, which Gerry attempted to raise, it was considered to be outside the remit of the civil case being judged.

An undisputed fact could therefore not be because the other party had nothing to say, but that they weren't allowed to dispute it.

[Robittybob1]

But thr McCann's would not have agreed

Not agreed to what?

[Robittybob1]

I'm still not clear what the complaint concerned. If it was about the dogs' reliability, which Gerry attempted to raise, it was considered to be outside the remit of the civil case being judged.

An undisputed fact could therefore not be because the other party had nothing to say, but that they weren't allowed to dispute it.

The complaint is what the complainant is complaining about.  The McCanns felt damaged by what Amaral and Co were saying publicly and on that point there was no resolution.