McCanns appeal to the European Court of Human Rights

[Mr Gray]

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

You dont seem to be able to...as i recall times you tried made no sense at all. if you cant explain ...fair enough...but you should not claim you can if you dont

[G-Unit]

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

Your understanding of 'proven facts' is wrong, just as your predictions about the ECHR were wrong. Accept that and move on, why don't you. I'm not interested in educating you.

[Mr Gray]

Your understanding of 'proven facts' is wrong, just as your predictions about the ECHR were wrong. Accept that and move on, why don't you. I'm not interested in educating you.

Your post is totallly laughable..you simply cannot expalin it....it would be better if you were truthful.
You think I could be educated by someone who doesnt think cancer causes smoking...
John asked for a little better behavior...you as a moderator should respect theat. the truth is Ive caught you out.

I would like to understand how the portuguese courts arrive at proven facts...which are neither facts nor proven...the truth is you havent got a clue

[jassi]

Nobody has to explain anything. The legal wrangling is all over.
Best to move on and take  yet another dogmatic stance over something else

[sadie]

The judge actually used the word 'truth', that's TRUTH, not facts. Perhaps this post will help you to understand; 

Another example of how failure to read correctly leads people down blind alleys. Elsewhere on the internet there is much kerfuffle over the  "Proved Facts" included in the judgement.

Much is being made of phases such as:

"Dogs of the British police "Eddie" and "Keela" detected brands odor of human blood and body in apartment 5a of the Ocean Club [point AR) of undisputed]. 7.Dogs of the British police "Eddie" and "Keela" detected odors of human blood and body in a vehicle rented by the authors Kate McCann and Gerald McCann after the disappearance of Madeleine"

"The minor Madeleine McCann died in the apartment 5A of the Ocean Club resort, on the night of May 3rd of 2007"

" Kate McCann and Gerald McCann are involved in the occultation of the cadaver of their child Madeleine McCann"

"From what was obtained until now, everything points out that the McCann, as self-defence, didn't want to deliver immediately and voluntarily the cadaver, existing a strong possibility that the same was transported from the initial place of deposition. This situation is susceptible to raise questions about the circumstances under which the death of the minor occurred."

A more nuanced reading shows that these are not "Proven Facts" in themselves, but the "Proven Fact" is that these statements were made in the previous reports rather than it was a proven fact that they were true. The court accepts that it is a fact that these statements occurin legal documents. Amaral needed this to claim that his book was based on what someone else had written.

So we will have another myth growing up that the Judge in this case accepted that Eddie and Keela reacted, that the McCanns hid the body, yet still found against the McCanns, when all the judge has found is that those statements occurred in another document.

I suspect the post mortem examination on this will go on for days or weeks and become an established factoid.

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=6257.msg236094#msg236094

It did indeed become an established factoid, with those who misunderstood what the judge was doing still clinging to it like superglue.

The security padlock at the top has an orange slash line through it.   
Also, the Http has no S on it.   The page is not to be trusted.   It is insecure and can be changed.  That might already have happened !

After what you just said about not trusting webpages that are shown to be security faulty, I am astounded that you are quoting this

[Eleanor]

Your understanding of 'proven facts' is wrong, just as your predictions about the ECHR were wrong. Accept that and move on, why don't you. I'm not interested in educating you.

You couldn't if you tried, sad to say.  I don't understand what causes nastiness, but you have no chance of implicating The McCanns.  And so you are doomed to failure.

[G-Unit]

Nobody has to explain anything. The legal wrangling is all over.
Best to move on and take  yet another dogmatic stance over something else

Some people just can't accept it when they get it wrong.

[Eleanor]

Some people just can't accept it when they get it wrong.

A lesson that you should consider.  Your arrogance stuns me at times.

[Brietta]

Some people just can't accept it when they get it wrong.

Well worth looking in before looking out.

[G-Unit]

A lesson that you should consider.  Your arrogance stuns me at times.

Your ability to ignore Mr Gray's arrogance amazes me!

[Mr Gray]

Some people just can't accept it when they get it wrong.

The fact is you claim knowledge and intelligence and you dont display either. I absolutely do not understand how the portuguese courts stated that alerts to cadaver were proven... that is clearly not true. I dont beleive you understand why and thats why you continually divert.

Ive shown a snip from the  Cipriano judgement showing taht because there was no proof it wasnt Joanas blood it was fair to assume it was...that became a proven fact ...can you explain that too

[Mr Gray]

Your ability to ignore Mr Gray's arrogance amazes me!

Ive no objection to being called arrogant...better than  being considered a fool then opening your mouth and proving it

[G-Unit]

The fact is you claim knowledge and intelligence and you dont display either. I absolutely do not understand how the portuguese courts stated that alerts to cadaver were proven... that is clearly not true. I dont beleive you understand why and thats why you continually divert.

Ive shown a snip from the  Cipriano judgement showing taht because there was no proof it wasnt Joanas blood it was fair to assume it was...that became a proven fact ...can you explain that too

Absolutely my last word. Opinions are allowed if they rest on a factual basis. Amaral's opinions rested on facts which were in the investigation files, including the fact that the dogs alerted to blood and cadaver in 5A and the car. His claim was proven.

Whether what was said about the alerts was true isn't the point, the point is did Amaral get his information from a verifiable source. He did, and the judges ratified it.

[misty]

If noting else, this claim served to highlight the difference between UK & EU libel law. It's no surprise Amaral's  books about Madeleine's case have never been published in the UK as the onus would have been on him to a actually prove his (libellous) claims were not falsehoods. No "proven facts" were ever proven in a criminal court.
 Perhaps that's why some of us have such a hard time accepting that ECHR decided his right to free speech prevailed yet the McCanns, due to judicial secrecy laws, were denied the right to publicly defend themselves against all sorts of allegations from PJ sources prior to the book being published. The McCanns became public figures with their freedom of speech curtailed so the balance of human rights was already weighed against them.
Did his book damage the search? Maybe...in the eyes of the public rather than the authorities.
Did his book harm the McCanns' reputation? Probably not as much as the harm he'd already caused to both them and Madeleine during the investigation.
Ultimately, Madeleine's case has been kept in the public eye over the years by this prolonged lawsuit. Some of us hope that the result will come back to hit Portugal where it hurts.
All IMO.

[jassi]

If noting else, this claim served to highlight the difference between UK & EU libel law. It's no surprise Amaral's  books about Madeleine's case have never been published in the UK as the onus would have been on him to a actually prove his (libellous) claims were not falsehoods. No "proven facts" were ever proven in a criminal court.
 Perhaps that's why some of us have such a hard time accepting that ECHR decided his right to free speech prevailed yet the McCanns, due to judicial secrecy laws, were denied the right to publicly defend themselves against all sorts of allegations from PJ sources prior to the book being published. The McCanns became public figures with their freedom of speech curtailed so the balance of human rights was already weighed against them.
Did his book damage the search? Maybe...in the eyes of the public rather than the authorities.
Did his book harm the McCanns' reputation? Probably not as much as the harm he'd already caused to both them and Madeleine during the investigation.
Ultimately, Madeleine's case has been kept in the public eye over the years by this prolonged lawsuit. Some of us hope that the result will come back to hit Portugal where it hurts.
All IMO.

Why would you wish that ?