McCanns appeal to the European Court of Human Rights

[Brietta]

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.

[Venturi Swirl]

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.

[Mr Gray]

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

[Lace]

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.

[Brietta]

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.

[Brietta]

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.

[Venturi Swirl]

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?

[Robittybob1]

What evidence is there that Amaral had read the final report?

[Venturi Swirl]

What evidence is there that Amaral had read the final report?

He wrote his book before it had been published.

[Brietta]

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.

[Robittybob1]

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.

[G-Unit]

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

[Mr Gray]

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.

[G-Unit]

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.

[Eleanor]

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.