McCanns appeal to the European Court of Human Rights

[G-Unit]

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.

[Brietta]

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.

[G-Unit]

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.

[Brietta]

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.

[Venturi Swirl]

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.

[barrier]

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 ?

[Brietta]

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.

[Brietta]

By going the litigation route ?

They did not go the "litigation route" until they were forced to.

[Venturi Swirl]

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.

[G-Unit]

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.

[G-Unit]

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)

[Venturi Swirl]

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. 

[Brietta]

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.

[G-Unit]

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.

[G-Unit]

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.