McCanns appeal to the European Court of Human Rights

[Mr Gray]

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...

[Miss Taken Identity]

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.

[Mr Gray]

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

[Miss Taken Identity]

the SC judgement is almost entirely re libel and presumption of innocence

We need to agree to disagree on this one.

[Mr Gray]

We need to agree to disagree on this one.

fine by me

[G-Unit]

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'.

[Mr Gray]

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

[Mr Gray]

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

[G-Unit]

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

[Mr Gray]

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

[G-Unit]

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.

[Mr Gray]

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

[Miss Taken Identity]

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.

[Mr Gray]

Innocence of what? no crime has been established.

Innocence at any criminal involvement..it must have been suspected as they were declared arguidos

[Miss Taken Identity]

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.