McCanns appeal to the European Court of Human Rights

[G-Unit]

You were quoting OxfordBloo were you not?  That is Debunker.

Can you prove that, I wonder. No matter. Whoever it is they understand 'proven facts' which so many supporters haven't managed to do.

[Eleanor]

Can you prove that, I wonder. No matter. Whoever it is they understand 'proven facts' which so many supporters haven't managed to do.

No need to prove it.  I know who he was and so does VS.  Debunker came and went with different names because he was getting so much hassle from Sceptics, although not alone in that.  But he was exceptionally good at it.

[Eleanor]

Incidentally, we all met up on The Mirror Forum, which was a long time ago and then went on from there together.  He was a warrior who often kept us all going.

[Venturi Swirl]

Can you prove that, I wonder. No matter. Whoever it is they understand 'proven facts' which so many supporters haven't managed to do.

Of course I can't prove it but I do know if for a fact.  Many here know it too.  I understand "proven facts" btw, doesn't mean I think the verdict was fair. 

[Eleanor]

Of course I can't prove it but I do know if for a fact.  Many here know it too.  I understand "proven facts" btw, doesn't mean I think the verdict was fair.

The Verdict clearly wasn't fair, but it is possible to understand.  However, it has done no real harm to the search for Madeleine.  In fact it has helped to keep Madeleine in The News, so worth every penny.  Presuming that The McCanns have to pay anything from The Fund.  I would like to see Amaral try to enforce that one.

[Mr Gray]

Can you prove that, I wonder. No matter. Whoever it is they understand 'proven facts' which so many supporters haven't managed to do.

You mean Portuguese proven facts which are neither proven nor facts.

[Mr Gray]

OxfordBloo certainly helped my understanding of the Portuguese legal system.

Could you explain to us in that case what a proven fact is according to the Portuguese courts

[Venturi Swirl]

Could you explain to us in that case what a proven fact is according to the Portuguese courts

It's a proven fact that the police wrote in the interim report that the dog alerts were definitely to a cadaver.  The fact is they were wrong to claim that as a fact, but the court didn't care about that, don't ask me why not.  If an interim report into CB concluded that Madeleine died in his camper van based on dog alerts then HCW would be entitled to write a whole book about how he dunnit and that would be perfectly OK as far as the ECHR is concerned. 

[jassi]

The Verdict clearly wasn't fair, but it is possible to understand.  However, it has done no real harm to the search for Madeleine.  In fact it has helped to keep Madeleine in The News, so worth every penny.  Presuming that The McCanns have to pay anything from The Fund.  I would like to see Amaral try to enforce that one.

Your opinion. The judges were quite satisfied with their decision and that's what counts

[Mr Gray]

Your opinion. The judges were quite satisfied with their decision and that's what counts

Some of us like to understand how things work.. We find it interesting

[G-Unit]

Could you explain to us in that case what a proven fact is according to the Portuguese courts

I've tried, believe me. Read what OxfordBloo said and forget your supporter myth.

[Mr Gray]

I've tried, believe me. Read what OxfordBloo said and forget your supporter myth.

I don't see you have explained it.. Could you briefly do it again or provide a link..

[jassi]

Some of us like to understand how things work.. We find it interesting

Doesn't matter how it works. Decision made. No amount of pointless discussion will alter that.

[Venturi Swirl]

Doesn't matter how it works. Decision made. No amount of pointless discussion will alter that.

A decision was made back in 2007 not to charge the McCanns with either child neglect or hiding their child’s body, shame you weren’t around to hand out your helpful advice then, it could have saved us all millions of man and woman hours pointlessly “reasearching” aka arguing.

[Brietta]

The German investigation didn't need a great deal of undermining, if we're honest. Wolters doesn't really have anything of substance against CB, that's the problem, & it could well be because the conclusions of the first investigation were correct, couldn't it.

Perhaps "undermining" is the wrong word.

Although I'm not too sure what to call deliberately feeding and publicising the wrong information in response to a police appeal for assistance in a criminal case.  Particularly one focusing on a missing child.

If you wish to comfort yourself that Amaral's investigation got anything right, allow me to direct you towards the private part of the forum which specifically addresses that question.
Maybe you will be able to add something to that thread which has escaped the attention of your fellow sceptics and is perhaps among the most underused on the forum.
Sometimes even sceptics can't bring themselves to defend the indefensible.