McCanns appeal to the European Court of Human Rights

[Mr Gray]

Something else that's misunderstood; cause and effect. Smoking increases the risk of developing certain health problems, but, as I said, it doesn't cause them.

The carcinogens in tobacco cause cancer..that's a 100% proven fact...only a fool would think otherwise

[Myster]

You would know all about that being someone who is quite content to ignore all the evidence that smoking causes great harm to human health.

Too true... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=69R0E_Rg_mQ

[Mr Gray]

You can believe anything you like if you ignore the evidence against your belief.

even in Portugal a proven fact is a fact considered to be true

[Eleanor]

Too true... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=69R0E_Rg_mQ

Wot?  I'm not watching that. I might learn something I don't want to know.

[Venturi Swirl]

Something else that's misunderstood; cause and effect. Smoking increases the risk of developing certain health problems, but, as I said, it doesn't cause them.

You might want to tell Cancer Research UK that as they have a whole section of their website devoted to "causes of cancer"
https://www.cancerresearchuk.org/about-cancer/causes-of-cancer
Of course you don't believe anything causes cancer so pointless continuing this particular discussion. 

[Venturi Swirl]

Too true... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=69R0E_Rg_mQ

I mean if I sat in a room that was gradually filled with smoke I would probably start coughing, might begin to devlop breathing problems and eventually I might die of smoke inhalation.  Would the smoke be the cause of my death, or would it just increase my chances of developing health problems and dying prematurely?  It's a typical G-Unit semantic quibble. 

[Venturi Swirl]

And then of course there is the NHS opinion that smoking causes cancer, but what do they know?  Better to listen to G-Unit than them, as she knows far more about everything, always.
https://www.nhs.uk/common-health-questions/lifestyle/what-are-the-health-risks-of-smoking/

"You can believe anything you like if you ignore the evidence against your belief" - G-Unit

[G-Unit]

even in Portugal a proven fact is a fact considered to be true

The true fact being that the information about the dogs was recorded in the case files.

[Mr Gray]

The true fact being that the information about the dogs was recorded in the case files.

Absolutely stupid post. What evidence do you have to support that...none

[Wonderfulspam]

And then of course there is the NHS opinion that smoking causes cancer, but what do they know?  Better to listen to G-Unit than them, as she knows far more about everything, always.
https://www.nhs.uk/common-health-questions/lifestyle/what-are-the-health-risks-of-smoking/

"You can believe anything you like if you ignore the evidence against your belief" - G-Unit

Smoking kills, this is true. But, curious story. A friend of mine died by being run over by a bus. The strange thing was, he'd never smoked a bus in his whole life.

[G-Unit]

Absolutely stupid post. What evidence do you have to support that...none

Well we know the judge wasn't suggesting that the dogs did alert to cadaver and blood because she told Gerry McCann that they were 'not here to ascertain that'. ' We are not here to prove if the contents of the book are truthful or not' she added.

[Mr Gray]

Well we know the judge wasn't suggesting that the dogs did alert to cadaver and blood because she told Gerry McCann that they were 'not here to ascertain that'. ' We are not here to prove if the contents of the book are truthful or not' she added.

Are you aware that in the summing up the McCann's lawyer spoke for 2 to 3 hours about the reliability of the dogs and dna.
At what stage did she say that..she decided to decide the case in the duty of reserve and avoid the conflict between free speech and reutatiin..on that basis the validity if the facts was not important. We also know that at the start if the trial the alerts were not part of the proven facts.
We know in the cioriano trual the judge supplied the reasoning to include the blood in fridge as part of the proven facts. How the alerts came to be considered priven facts has not been answered...you think it has but have supplied nothing to support your belief

[G-Unit]

Are you aware that in the summing up the McCann's lawyer spoke for 2 to 3 hours about the reliability of the dogs and dna.
At what stage did she say that..she decided to decide the case in the duty of reserve and avoid the conflict between free speech and reutatiin..on that basis the validity if the facts was not important. We also know that at the start if the trial the alerts were not part of the proven facts.
We know in the cioriano trual the judge supplied the reasoning to include the blood in fridge as part of the proven facts. How the alerts came to be considered priven facts has not been answered...you think it has but have supplied nothing to support your belief

The McCann's lawyer spoke for hours when? I don't know when the judge finalised her proven facts, but her interaction with Gerry McCann took place in July 2014. It was obviously preying on his mind.

In my opinion the judge went with the duty of reserve because of the total lack of evidence the McCanns supplied to support their case. Most of their allegations against Amaral were not proved.

[Brietta]

The McCann's lawyer spoke for hours when? I don't know when the judge finalised her proven facts, but her interaction with Gerry McCann took place in July 2014. It was obviously preying on his mind.

In my opinion the judge went with the duty of reserve because of the total lack of evidence the McCanns supplied to support their case. Most of their allegations against Amaral were not proved.

It was proved categorically that Amaral had broken the law when he indulged in a verbal tirade against Kate and Gerry McCann in what he thought was an off the record leak of information fulminating against Kate and Gerry McCann.

Indeed it resulted in his sacking from the investigation.  It really should have resulted in charges being laid for his flagrant breaking of Portuguese secrecy law ~ a situation ignored then when this and other obvious breaches were subsequently ignored by Portuguese judges and appeal court judges as ratified by the ECHR.


Why don't Portuguese police release more information to the media and the public?

All criminal cases in Portugal - and elsewhere in much of Europe - are governed by the law of judicial secrecy.

This means that once a criminal investigation is under way, police cannot reveal anything about that investigation, including any details about potential suspects.

Any leaks could jeopardise a trial.

The BBC's Alison Roberts, in the Algarve, explains that normally this secrecy is not an issue because the Portuguese media are used to it and know not to bother asking questions.

Problems can arise though, she says, as with information about Madeleine's clothing, when there is confusion about whether something is already in the public domain.

And if a detail has come from a different source - such as the family involved - can police then discuss it openly even if it falls under the secrecy law?

This grey area, our correspondent says, could help explain the second press conference held by police on Monday.

At the first media briefing on Saturday, the police may have felt they started to go down a road they shouldn't have - towards saying too much - Ms Roberts said.

Then in the second conference they tried to rein the situation back in, she added.

There has been surprise in some Portuguese quarters that police have even said as much as they have and there can be serious repercussions for breaking the secrecy law.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/6634283.stm

[G-Unit]

It was proved categorically that Amaral had broken the law when he indulged in a verbal tirade against Kate and Gerry McCann in what he thought was an off the record leak of information fulminating against Kate and Gerry McCann.

Indeed it resulted in his sacking from the investigation.  It really should have resulted in charges being laid for his flagrant breaking of Portuguese secrecy law ~ a situation ignored then when this and other obvious breaches were subsequently ignored by Portuguese judges and appeal court judges as ratified by the ECHR.


Why don't Portuguese police release more information to the media and the public?

All criminal cases in Portugal - and elsewhere in much of Europe - are governed by the law of judicial secrecy.

This means that once a criminal investigation is under way, police cannot reveal anything about that investigation, including any details about potential suspects.

Any leaks could jeopardise a trial.

The BBC's Alison Roberts, in the Algarve, explains that normally this secrecy is not an issue because the Portuguese media are used to it and know not to bother asking questions.

Problems can arise though, she says, as with information about Madeleine's clothing, when there is confusion about whether something is already in the public domain.

And if a detail has come from a different source - such as the family involved - can police then discuss it openly even if it falls under the secrecy law?

This grey area, our correspondent says, could help explain the second press conference held by police on Monday.

At the first media briefing on Saturday, the police may have felt they started to go down a road they shouldn't have - towards saying too much - Ms Roberts said.

Then in the second conference they tried to rein the situation back in, she added.

There has been surprise in some Portuguese quarters that police have even said as much as they have and there can be serious repercussions for breaking the secrecy law.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/6634283.stm

As I recall, Amaral's 'verbal tirade' was aimed at the UK police, not at the McCanns. The incident you're referring to wasn't brought up in the libel trial so the judges were not able to discuss it.