McCanns appeal to the European Court of Human Rights

[Venturi Swirl]

Neither court was required to discover what was true, just that the information quoted by Amaral was taken from the investigation files.

Exactly.  So how did the court arrive at the decision that Amaral did not libel the McCanns?  Libel being the publication of untrue and defamatory allegations  about another person.  Please explain.

[Wonderfulspam]

Exactly.  So how did the court arrive at the decision that Amaral did not libel the McCanns?  Libel being the publication of untrue and defamatory allegations  about another person.  Please explain.

Because the theory was based on evidence? Albeit scant, as you have conceded.

[Mr Gray]

Neither court was required to discover what was true, just that the information quoted by Amaral was taken from the investigation files.

I agree...but what was in the files was pure lies...you have to agree with that. So the ECHRs decision was based on lies...as you have now agreed...

[Wonderfulspam]

I agree...but what was in the files was pure lies...you have to agree with that. So the ECHRs decision was based on lies...as you have now agreed...

If the proven facts had said that the cadaver dog alerted to all things McCann, as oppose to saying the alerts confirmed cadaver odour, I really don't believe the outcome would have been any different. I mean, what were the investigative team supposed to have deduced from cadaver alerts combined with dubious claims of open windows, slamming doors & a sighting of Gerry? Abduction I suppose, because it's the only logical & plausible explanation apparently.

[Mr Gray]

If the proven facts had said that the cadaver dog alerted to all things McCann, as oppose to saying the alerts confirmed cadaver odour, I really don't believe the outcome would have been any different. I mean, what were the investigative team supposed to have deduced from cadaver alerts combined with dubious claims of open windows, slamming doors & a sighting of Gerry? Abduction I suppose, because it's the only logical & plausible explanation apparently.

What you think is of no importance.. My post is fact not opinion

[Wonderfulspam]

What you think is of no importance.. My post is fact not opinion

Good for you. Have a biscuit, & remember to get back to me when Brueckner is charged.

[barrier]

What you think is of no importance.. My post is fact not opinion

Your post is opinion of what you consider to be fact.

[Wonderfulspam]

Your post is opinion of what you consider to be fact.

It's a proven fact the dog alerted to things McCann & that there's still no sign of the abductor after 16 years, coincidently.

[Mr Gray]

Your post is opinion of what you consider to be fact.

Point out which part of my post is opinion

[Wonderfulspam]

Point out which part of my post is opinion

Your opinion that my opinion isn't important. That's just your opinion. I believe my opinion is very important. Indeed it's often important enough to some that they feel compelled to reply.

[G-Unit]

I agree...but what was in the files was pure lies...you have to agree with that. So the ECHRs decision was based on lies...as you have now agreed...

What makes you think that the files could only contain truths? I expect most police investigation files contain lies, misunderstandings, evasions and opinions. That wasn't the issue. The issue was whether Amaral based his opinions on the information in the files and he did.

[Venturi Swirl]

What makes you think that the files could only contain truths? I expect most police investigation files contain lies, misunderstandings, evasions and opinions. That wasn't the issue. The issue was whether Amaral based his opinions on the information in the files and he did.

And according to the courts that isn't a problem, so why is it a problem for anyone else to do so on this forum?  The ECHR ruling has made it clear that anyone covered by the ECHR can say whatever they want about the McCanns even if it is grossly defamatory, or hurts them or their family.

[Wonderfulspam]

And according to the courts that isn't a problem, so why is it a problem for anyone else to do so on this forum?  The ECHR ruling has made it clear that anyone covered by the ECHR can say whatever they want about the McCanns even if it is grossly defamatory, or hurts them or their family.

Only if it's based on evidence. Which Amaral's theory was, as you agreed earlier.

[G-Unit]

And according to the courts that isn't a problem, so why is it a problem for anyone else to do so on this forum?  The ECHR ruling has made it clear that anyone covered by the ECHR can say whatever they want about the McCanns even if it is grossly defamatory, or hurts them or their family.

I suggest you ask John to explain. His forum, his rules.

[Mr Gray]

Your opinion that my opinion isn't important. That's just your opinion. I believe my opinion is very important. Indeed it's often important enough to some that they feel compelled to reply.

I don't feel compelled to reply at all.. I'm being courteous