Did Gonçalo Amaral misinterpret the evidence?

[Mr Gray]

It would make my life easier if you could provide cites for information quoted. However, I have got it now. It appears in the first judgement dated 27th April 2015, page 9.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=6307.0

Now I understand why Gerry McCann wanted to talk about cadaver dogs when he gave his evidence. What I can't work out is who decided what the proven facts were and when they decided what they were. It seems to have happened in a hearing for which we don't have the transcript;

A preliminary hearing (in 5 sessions) occurred, during which was produced the generic preparatory dispatch that declared the plea valid and regular (3)

At the same hearing the undisputed facts were established and the instruction basis was structured, the complaint of the claimants being rejected.
Judgement dated 27th April 2007 page 6
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=6307.0

i didnt give a source because i genuinely thought most posters were familiar with such an important point...waht i find interesting from your quote is....

At the same hearing the undisputed facts were established and the instruction basis was structured, the complaint of the claimants being rejected.


so did the mccanns oppose the points but their complaint was rejected

[Robittybob1]

no we dont Rob

Would it be on the list of agreed facts if it wasn't?

[Mr Gray]

Would it be on the list of agreed facts if it wasn't?

if the mccanns objected and their rejection was overuled ..yes

[G-Unit]

Good work G-unit.  So we have to admit the McCanns accept there was cadaver odour detected in the apartment.  Why would they ever do that? It would make sense if they knew there had been a cadaver in the apartment at some stage.  That does not mean they accept that that cadaver was Madeleine.

We don't know if the McCanns and/or their lawyers were present at this 'preliminary hearing'. I have a suspicion that the various injunction hearings are what is being referred to.

[Robittybob1]

We don't know if the McCanns and/or their lawyers were present at this 'preliminary hearing'. I have a suspicion that the various injunction hearings are what is being referred to.

So there is a list of facts that the parties agree to prior to the court case,  in writing is OK.  So they agree the dogs went through the apartment and they alerted to what they were trained to, and they accepted there had been a cadaver in the apartment.

I think it is vital especially in my theory they need to accept this as a fact.  For they can't claim there was another cadaver involved later if they didn't.

[Mr Gray]

So there is a list of facts that the parties agree to prior to the court case,  in writing is OK.  So they agree the dogs went through the apartment and they alerted to what they were trained to, and they accepted there had been a cadaver in the apartment.

I think it is vital especially in my theory they need to accept this as a fact.  For they can't claim there was another cadaver involved later if they didn't.

I dont think anything of what you are saying is true...Gerry said the dogs were unreliable

[Robittybob1]

I dont think anything of what you are saying is true...Gerry said the dogs were unreliable

What he says out of court could be different, but it is what he says/agrees in the court case is the issue here.

[Mr Gray]

What he says out of court could be different, but it is what he says/agrees in the court case is the issue here.

there is no evidence he agreed to anything...best stick to the facts

[Mr Gray]

What he says out of court could be different, but it is what he says/agrees in the court case is the issue here.

i can give you another example...in the cipriano case one of the proven facts is taht Joannas bllod was found in the fridge.....the blood in the fridge was never dna tested...it seems the portuguese definition of proof is very loose

[Robittybob1]

there is no evidence he agreed to anything...best stick to the facts

I think that is the basis of the list of proven facts.  Both sides agree to these facts.

[Mr Gray]

I think that is the basis of the list of proven facts.  Both sides agree to these facts.

so in the cipriano case you think both sides agreed joannas blood was found in the fridge

[Robittybob1]

so in the cipriano case you think both sides agreed joannas blood was found in the fridge

I have no idea.  I don't study that case.

[Sunny]

In the proven facts...it states.  The dog alerted to cadaver odour

So when I question the post below

The alerts have not been proven to be from cadaver


You say this. Are they "proven" or not. It doesn't appear that you can make your mind up on that one.

[Robittybob1]

So when I question the post below

The alerts have not been proven to be from cadaver


You say this. Are they "proven" or not. It doesn't appear that you can make your mind up on that one.

There is two or more meanings to the word proven
Proven scientifically with corroborating evidence.
or proven as being on a list of proven facts or just both parties not disputing the fact.

Like both parties could agree that Kate's finger prints were on the window, but doesn't prove she opened it.

[Sunny]

There is two or more meanings to the word proven
Proven scientifically with corroborating evidence.
or proven as being on a list of proven facts or just both parties not disputing the fact.

Like both parties could agree that Kate's finger prints were on the window, but doesn't prove she opened it.

Rob I understand that but Davel went from the dogs alerts were not proven to they were proven. That was my point