McCanns appeal to the European Court of Human Rights

[Mr Gray]

One might almost think you were being deliberately obtuse.

“The investigation never said it could prove Maddie died in the apartment and was not abducted”

You think a lot that is incorrect... Imo

[Montclair]

From looking at other cases on the ECHR website.... The court will look at the veracity of the accusations

The applicants can only present arguments that had already been presented in court in Portugal. They can't use new elements that were not part of their case in the beginning and the question of the veracity of the book was never part of the case, as confirmed by the judge.

[Miss Taken Identity]

The applicants can only present arguments that had already been presented in court in Portugal. They can't use new elements that were not part of their case in the beginning and the question of the veracity of the book was never part of the case, as confirmed by the judge.

Im going for 'they will try' as they did at the second diet. Gerry tried to control the agenda and the Jodge was  having none of it, telling him to sit down!  oh how I laughed.

[Mr Gray]

The applicants can only present arguments that had already been presented in court in Portugal. They can't use new elements that were not part of their case in the beginning and the question of the veracity of the book was never part of the case, as confirmed by the judge.

Absolute rubbish..... Gerry wanted to question the alerts, and was not allowed....

[Miss Taken Identity]

Absolute rubbish..... Gerry wanted to question the alerts, and was not allowed....

Hahahaha he wanted to 'ask the dawgs' Sandra?  He alreay rubbished the dogs .

[Alice Purjorick]

And I did not expect you to agre with me.  As Montclair pointed out the domestic courts, were not concerned with the veracity of the statements... From what I have seen the, ECHR will be... and that makes some, sense.  It's no good saying the domestic court got it right.... That's why they've gone to the ECHR... the complaint to the ECHR isn't the, same as, was made at the first instance... It can't be..
It's what was ruled by the SC on presumption  of innocence and right to reputation ..
Amaral has nothing to do with the action but what he, has, said has a, lot to do with the action

What is it you have seen?
The argument can only be does Article 8 trump Article 10 or vice versa. Did the Supreme Court say the McCanns were guilty of anything?
There have a large number of cases where the ECtHR believed Article 10 was supreme.
It's anyone's guess how it will be judged but what it will not do is cause a seismic shift of anything.

[Miss Taken Identity]

What is it you have seen?
The argument can only be does Article 8 trump Article 10 or vice versa. Did the Supreme Court say the McCanns were guilty of anything?
There have a large number of cases where the ECtHR believed Article 10 was supreme.
It's anyone's guess how it will be judged but what it will not do is cause a seismic shift of anything.

But what we could do is imagine that the ECHR will find the MCanns innocent of everything and find Amaral guilty and have him shot at dawn-not to mention bankrupting the whole portugal nation for having the bloody audacity to suspect perfect parents of any crime.

[Erngath]

But what we could do is imagine that the ECHR will find the MCanns innocent of everything and find Amaral guilty and have him shot at dawn-not to mention bankrupting the whole portugal nation for having the bloody audacity to suspect perfect parents of any crime.

If only!

[Miss Taken Identity]

If only the parents loved their childern enough to take them out to dinner with them...to spend quality time with them...

If only....

[Mr Gray]

What is it you have seen?
The argument can only be does Article 8 trump Article 10 or vice versa. Did the Supreme Court say the McCanns were guilty of anything?
There have a large number of cases where the ECtHR believed Article 10 was supreme.
It's anyone's guess how it will be judged but what it will not do is cause a seismic shift of anything.

Ive been saying its 8 vs 10 for some time........if we look at previous cases we can get some idea of how the court judge these casess  ....Ive shown some here. From what I have seen the mccanns have a strong case

[slartibartfast]

Ive been saying its 8 vs 10 for some time........if we look at previous cases we can get some idea of how the court judge these casess  ....Ive shown some here. From what I have seen the mccanns have a strong case

The cases you quote are usually about third parties (newspapers) with no connection to the cases making statements with lack of knowledge or backing against private individuals. That is not the case in the McCann case.

[Mr Gray]

The cases you quote are usually about third parties (newspapers) with no connection to the cases making statements with lack of knowledge or backing against private individuals. That is not the case in the McCann case.

The fact amaral had a connection ti the case makes no difference IMO... That will be up to the court....I don't expect sceptics to agree with me but to suggest the McCanns have no case is ridiculous.  The cases I have shown indicate that there should be evidence to support the claim and the view expressed should be balanced.  There is no evidence Maddie died in the apartment... The Portuguese court totally ignored the lack of evidence.  The book and the SC judgement have labelled the McCanns criminals... I feel they have a very strong case.... I don't expect sceptics to accept that

[Sunny]

The fact amaral had a connection ti the case makes no difference IMO... That will be up to the court....I don't expect sceptics to agree with me but to suggest the McCanns have no case is ridiculous.  The cases I have shown indicate that there should be evidence to support the claim and the view expressed should be balanced.  There is no evidence Maddie died in the apartment... The Portuguese court totally ignored the lack of evidence.  The book and the SC judgement have labelled the McCanns criminals... I feel they have a very strong case.... I don't expect sceptics to accept that

That's all right then Davel.  You say this time and time again but it is still only your opinion after all.

[Mr Gray]

That's all right then Davel.  You say this time and time again but it is still only your opinion after all.

And posters have continually posted... They won't apply... They have no case... It won't be accepted... I'm simply giving the other side.... And at least my opinion is based on cases I have cited....

[Montclair]

Absolute rubbish..... Gerry wanted to question the alerts, and was not allowed....

The reason Gerry was not allowed to rubbish the dogs in court was because it was not part of the case. The judge said that they were not there to judge the veracity of the book or the investigation. The case was how the book, video, etc. damaged the search and their livres. The ECHR is not a criminal court and will certainly not be studying the fine points of the police investigation.