McCanns appeal to the European Court of Human Rights

[Wonderfulspam]

Yet that's exactly what the Portuguese court did..claiming
Eddie's alert  to cadaver odour was a fact..
That gave the thesis a supposed  factual basis

When everyone knows Eddie was just alerting to Sean's Sea Bass Sandwiches & the MET have irrefutable EMWTIACABAS.

[Mr Gray]

1.2. In the appealed acórdão the following facts are considered proven :

1. The applicants Gerald McCann and Kate (sic) are married to each other.

2. The applicant Madeleine McCann was born on 12.5.2003 , daughter of Kate McCann and Gerald McCann.

3. The applicant Sean McCann was born on 1/2/2005, son of  Kate McCann and Gerald McCann.

4. The applicant Amelie McCann was born on 1/2/2005 , daughter of Kate McCann and Gerald McCann.

5. The applicant Madeleine McCann has been missing since 3/5/2007 , resulting in the criminal investigation n° 201/07.0 GALGS, opened by the prosecutor of Portimão.

6. The dogs Eddie and Keela, from the British police, have detected human blood and cadaver scent in the apartment 5A of the Ocean Club.

7. The dogs Eddie and Keela, from the British police, have detected human blood and cadaver scent in the vehicle rented by the applicants Kate McCann and Gerald McCann after Madeleine's disappearance.

8. The applicants Kate McCann and Gerald McCann were constituted (by lawyer) assisted witnesses (arguidos) in the criminal investigation.

9.  On 10/9/2007 (pp. 2587-2602 of the criminal investigation), Chief-Inspector Tavares de Almeida wrote a report and particularly the following :

"Given what we could establish, the facts point towards the death of Madeleine McCann during the evening of May 3 2007, in the apartment 5A of Praia da Luz Ocean Club resort, occupied by the McCann couple and their three children (p. 2599) (... )



Could any of my critics...including John...expalin why facts 6 and 7 were considered proven......and why the mccanns lawyers never questioned them.

These were the facts presented to the ECHR and on whcih their judgement was based. its not the ECHRs job to question the accepted fcats in the case...its not their role to act as a 4th court and retry  the case.

Based on the proven facts the ECHR had no option other than to rule in Amarals favour

[Mr Gray]

Cipriano trial...

E.VII. There was also no insurmountable contradiction in the motivation resulting from the fact that the traces collected through the projectina technique were not understood to belong to the deceased CC and the understanding that the traces of human blood collected in the house where the facts took place were hers, or between this conclusion and that, due to the cleaning carried out by defendant BB, it was not possible to determine the DNA of said blood.
This is because it was through many other pieces of evidence that it was concluded that the blood that was collected in the house was the minor's blood, in no way connecting these hematic traces with those collected using the projectin technique (which causes other bodily fluids to appear).
Even though the alleged contradiction could only exist if there were, in turn, laboratory elements that ruled out the possibility that the blood belonged to the victim, which did not happen.
There are therefore no contradictory facts given as proven in this matter.


so here... because there was no evidence to contradict and the blood was not tested...
It was accepted as proven that the blood belonged to Joanna

[Venturi Swirl]

Cipriano trial...

E.VII. There was also no insurmountable contradiction in the motivation resulting from the fact that the traces collected through the projectina technique were not understood to belong to the deceased CC and the understanding that the traces of human blood collected in the house where the facts took place were hers, or between this conclusion and that, due to the cleaning carried out by defendant BB, it was not possible to determine the DNA of said blood.
This is because it was through many other pieces of evidence that it was concluded that the blood that was collected in the house was the minor's blood, in no way connecting these hematic traces with those collected using the projectin technique (which causes other bodily fluids to appear).
Even though the alleged contradiction could only exist if there were, in turn, laboratory elements that ruled out the possibility that the blood belonged to the victim, which did not happen.
There are therefore no contradictory facts given as proven in this matter.


so here... because there was no evidence to contradict and the blood was not tested...
It was accepted as proven that the blood belonged to Joanna

astounding logic.

[G-Unit]

Is there any point in revisiting the same old arguments about the libel trial and the ECHR application by the McCann? The facts are that the McCanns were unsuccessful in both cases - it's all over and done with and can't be changed. Those who predicted different outcomes were wrong.

[Mr Gray]

astounding logic.

Ive put up two points re portuguese justice...interesting points....yet all Gunit can respond...and she thinks shes more clever, intelligent and knowledgable than I am, is....well you were wrong about the ECHR verdict...pathetic sceptic logic/reasoning.

[Mr Gray]

Is there any point in revisiting the same old arguments about the libel trial and the ECHR application by the McCann? The facts are that the McCanns were unsuccessful in both cases - it's all over and done with and can't be changed. Those who predicted different outcomes were wrong.

its quite ironic that the only reason I commented on it was the fact that you raised it...how daft is that. Having been shown how little you understand it and how you cannot answer the points I raise you want to run away. Theres a sceptic on twitter who got his prediction right....his reasoning...the ECHR ruled for portugal because the mccanns are liars....you probably think hes more clever..intelligent and knowledgeable tahn I am...LOL.


Getting a question right when being totally ignorant as to why the answer is what it is is totally inferior to getting it wrong but having a thorough understanding of the principle involved

[G-Unit]

Ive put up two points re portuguese justice...interesting points....yet all Gunit can respond...and she thinks shes more clever, intelligent and knowledgable than I am, is....well you were wrong about the ECHR verdict...pathetic sceptic logic/reasoning.

Did you expect the Portuguese courts or the ECHR to contradict or question what was said in the PJ  files released after the archiving?

[barrier]

Is there any point in revisiting the same old arguments about the libel trial and the ECHR application by the McCann? The facts are that the McCanns were unsuccessful in both cases - it's all over and done with and can't be changed. Those who predicted different outcomes were wrong.

He's had a kicking over it on twitter so he's back to where he thinks its less rough.

[Venturi Swirl]

He's had a kicking over it on twitter so he's back to where he thinks its less rough.

It's a bit sad that you are following Mr Gray around the internet and reporting back here on his activities IMO. 

[Mr Gray]

Did you expect the Portuguese courts or the ECHR to contradict or question what was said in the PJ  files released after the archiving?

The question I'm asking is why do lies appear in the proven facts... Simple question.. But you can't answer it

[Mr Gray]

He's had a kicking over it on twitter so he's back to where he thinks its less rough.

On twitter I took part in a live discussion.. That's live speech.. Me against 6 sceptics..Live debate
Isabelle Mcfadden.. A leading sceptic.. Said I was of a different calibre.. And congratulate d me on my knowledge and delivery.. I tied them in knots.only a stupid sceptic could equate that to a good kicking

[Eleanor]

It's a bit sad that you are following Mr Gray around the internet and reporting back here on his activities IMO.

A bit pathetic, actually.

[G-Unit]

The question I'm asking is why do lies appear in the proven facts... Simple question.. But you can't answer it

That question isn't relevant, as the judge of the first instance told Gerry McCann in 2014;

GMC – But the book mentions facts that aren't true.

Judge – To decide that there are already forensic experts. We are not here to prove if the contents of the book are truthful or not. Here we are only trying to establish if the freedom of expression of the defendants has affected the rights of the claimants. This court cannot be a substitute of the criminal investigation. [Turns to the interpreter] Tell the gentleman that he is excused.

[Brietta]

Did you expect the Portuguese courts or the ECHR to contradict or question what was said in the PJ  files released after the archiving?

Think I am naïve if you wish, but I rather expected the files which reflected the evidence to prevail (for example those reflecting the truth of the matter re the FSS forensic conclusions) rather than the ones which propounded an exceedingly flawed version of events which existed only in the flawed mind and unworkable theories as outlined in Amaral, the chief investigators book.

Worth bearing in mind that Amaral was sacked from the investigation.  Not surprising from a man who though Calpol was a sedative and not an analgesic.