McCanns appeal to the European Court of Human Rights

[Wonderfulspam]

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.

But, but the information in the files was based on Amaral's misinterpretation of the dog alerts. The alerts don't prove cadaver odour, as the PJ mistakenly believed. No inference at all can be made from the alerts, you see. They'd need supporting evidence. But there's still no sign of a living Maddie after all these years either, so maybe Amaral was actually right & she died in the apartment after all. I can't see any way to rule that out, unless Madeleine or the abductor are found. Wolters needs to pull his finger out & prove abduction, or else the poor McCanns might have to suffer the effects of lingering public suspicion. However, they actually failed to demonstrate the thesis in Amaral's book damaged them in any measurable way.

[Venturi Swirl]

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

I already did, remember?
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=12497.msg699734#msg699734
You jumped in and answered for him, and here we are.

[Carana]

Re Mr Gray's question on what a proven fact means in PT law.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=post;quote=700607;topic=12504.45

I haven't read the ECtHR ruling, so I'm not sure what the argument is actually about.

[Mr Gray]

Re Mr Gray's question on what a proven fact means in PT law.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=post;quote=700607;topic=12504.45

I haven't read the ECtHR ruling, so I'm not sure what the argument is actually about.

Its academic now but I like academia.
The judgement said amarals book had sufficient factual basis and therefore ruled in Portugals favour.

The General provided me with  alink to an interesting paper which said the ECHR would accept the facts as judged by the initial trial which stated in the proven facts that the cadaver dog alerted to cadaver odour. If that was true then it would be quite reasonable for the PJ to be convinced taht Maddie died in the apartmnet......as abduction would be ruled out.

This means Amarals afctual basis wasnt factual.... I finf it all very starnge.

unfortunately your link doesnt work

[Mr Gray]

Re Mr Gray's question on what a proven fact means in PT law.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=post;quote=700607;topic=12504.45

I haven't read the ECtHR ruling, so I'm not sure what the argument is actually about.

I dont know of any other legal system where this is the case.......the question is did the ECHR judges understand Portugals odd understanding of proven facts....then what did the McCanns lawyers do in not filing an objection to it. Again...if it was true.. I dont see  anything but the mccanns guilt

[Carana]

Its academic now but I like academia.
The judgement said amarals book had sufficient factual basis and therefore ruled in Portugals favour.

The General provided me with  alink to an interesting paper which said the ECHR would accept the facts as judged by the initial trial which stated in the proven facts that the cadaver dog alerted to cadaver odour. If that was true then it would be quite reasonable for the PJ to be convinced taht Maddie died in the apartmnet......as abduction would be ruled out.

This means Amarals afctual basis wasnt factual.... I finf it all very starnge.

unfortunately your link doesnt work

Any chance of a link to the paper in question? I still haven't read the judgement, sorry. However, skimming through the previous 2-3 pages, my understanding is similar to what G-Unit posted on the previous couple of pages.

[Mr Gray]

 

Any chance of a link to the paper in question? I still haven't read the judgement, sorry. However, skimming through the previous 2-3 pages, my understanding is similar to what G-Unit posted on the previous couple of pages.

The link has expired but was quite clear that the court would take the evidence as accepted by the court in question..so the dogs alerting to cadaver was accepted as fact and amaral theory accepted as having sufficient factual basis. Therefore it's not libellous to say CB is guilty based on the German police files

[G-Unit]

The link has expired but was quite clear that the court would take the evidence as accepted by the court in question..so the dogs alerting to cadaver was accepted as fact and amaral theory accepted as having sufficient factual basis. Therefore it's not libellous to say CB is guilty based on the German police files

I that's a very simplistic and probably incorrect assumption.

[Mr Gray]

I that's a very simplistic and probably incorrect assumption.

When did you become the expert in a position to criticise me lol... If you want to give your opinion that's fine... But make it clear it is your opinion.. And imo
... You dont have a clue what you are talking about

[Mr Gray]

I that's a very simplistic and probably incorrect assumption.

If you are going to give your opinion on my post you should make sure you make it clear it's your opinion..
Imo..you haven't got a clue

[Mr Gray]

This is from the official court summary in the Cipriano case

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 body 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 


so blood collected in the fridge...even though it was not DNA tested..was accepted a s proven to belong to Joanna as there were no contradictory facts......what an absolute insult to evidence and justice

[Eleanor]

This is from the official court summary in the Cipriano case

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 body 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 


so blood collected in the fridge...even though it was not DNA tested..was accepted a s proven to belong to Joanna as there were no contradictory facts......what an absolute insult to evidence and justice

Now we know why Leonor Cipriano didn't appeal to The ECHR.

[John]

Now we know why Leonor Cipriano didn't appeal to The ECHR.

She never appealed because she was guilty as hell by her own mouth.

[Venturi Swirl]

She never appealed because she was guilty as hell by her own mouth.

What do you think of the concept of judging that the blood in the fridge was Joana's without bothering to conduct a DNA test? 

[Eleanor]

What do you think of the concept of judging that the blood in the fridge was Joana's without bothering to conduct a DNA test?

Well, it couldn't have been meat, could it.  What a ridiculous suggestion that would have been.