McCanns appeal to the European Court of Human Rights

[Mr Gray]

How do you know?

Know what

[slartibartfast]

Know what

Oddly enough, it was the statement you made in the post I replied to.

[Mr Gray]

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....

[Montclair]

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".

[Mr Gray]

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

[barrier]

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?

[Eleanor]

How do you know?

Cite for that.  If you please.

[Mr Gray]

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

[Montclair]

The case was never about the veracity of the book or the investigation.

[Mr Gray]

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

[John]

All posters are asked to please refrain from making disparaging remarks towards our moderators. It is both uncalled for and unnecessary.  TY

[Alice Purjorick]

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.

[Mr Gray]

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

[Mr Gray]

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

[slartibartfast]

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”