McCanns appeal to the European Court of Human Rights

[Mr Gray]

Ofcourse everyone knows Madeleins human rights have been violated, due to her parents descision to leave her without proper care and attention. so what ever happened, Maddies rights have been violated as a result of parental behaviour.

I do read your posts but as they contain little sense  ..imo... I don't see the point in replying further.. Like other sceptics every thread descends into a hate McCann fest..pathetic.. Imo

[barrier]

I do read your posts but as they contain little sense  ..imo... I don't see the point in replying further.. Like other sceptics every thread descends into a hate McCann fest..pathetic.. Imo

Most other threads turn into bash the PJ or Amaral,never the twain shall meet.

[G-Unit]

Amaral said he could prove Maddie died in the apartment and her death was covered up..

He did, but that wasn't the reason the judge gave for ruling in favour of the McCanns. Instead she relied on Amaral's alleged reserve duty, as the SC judges noted;

"that sentence ended up resolving the issue by resorting to the presumption of innocence of the claimants Kate and Gerald McCann and to the reserve duty of the defendant Gonçalo Amaral,..." page 55

In fact she made Amaral's alleged reserve duty "the cornerstone of the entire construction leading to the conclusion that the conduct of that defendant was illicit" Page 48

So Amaral's alleged reserve duty was the cornerstone of the first instance judge's ruling. Remove that and everthing based on it goes too. The appeal court judges rejected it, and the McCann's lawyer didn't include it in her appeal to the Supreme Court. (see page 48 paragraph beginning The appellants)
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=7937.0

[Mr Gray]

He did, but that wasn't the reason the judge gave for ruling in favour of the McCanns. Instead she relied on Amaral's alleged reserve duty, as the SC judges noted;

"that sentence ended up resolving the issue by resorting to the presumption of innocence of the claimants Kate and Gerald McCann and to the reserve duty of the defendant Gonçalo Amaral,..." page 55

In fact she made Amaral's alleged reserve duty "the cornerstone of the entire construction leading to the conclusion that the conduct of that defendant was illicit" Page 48

So Amaral's alleged reserve duty was the cornerstone of the first instance judge's ruling. Remove that and everthing based on it goes too. The appeal court judges rejected it, and the McCann's lawyer didn't include it in her appeal to the Supreme Court. (see page 48 paragraph beginning The appellants)
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=7937.0

It doesn't matter what the judge ruled on.... She found in favour of the McCann's so their human rights were not affected.  The SC judgement did pose a possible breach of articles 2 and 8 so that's what's important imo

The subsequent appeal to the SC ensured they had exhausted  all domestic remedies

[G-Unit]

It doesn't matter what the judge ruled on.... She found in favour of the McCann's so their human rights were not affected.  The SC judgement did pose a possible breach of articles 2 and 8 so that's what's important imo

The subsequent appeal to the SC ensured they had exhausted  all domestic remedies

You clearly don't understand the role of Appeal courts. They examine the grounds on which a judge in a lower court based his/her judgement and either support or overturn it.

[Mr Gray]

You clearly don't understand the role of Appeal courts. They examine the grounds on which a judge in a lower court based his/her judgement and either support or overturn it.

you clearly dont understand what I understand.

[G-Unit]

you clearly dont understand what I understand.

I understand that you have been unable to counter my (cited) posts with anything of substance.

[Mr Gray]

I understand that you have been unable to counter my (cited) posts with anything of substance.

you dont seem to understand thats your opinion which doesnt show much insight..imo......I havent seen you post anything of substance...thats my opinion

[G-Unit]

you dont seem to understand thats your opinion which doesnt show much insight..imo......I havent seen you post anything of substance...thats my opinion

[Mr Gray]

I don't think resorting to emoticons is very impressive

[Mr Gray]

You clearly don't understand the role of Appeal courts. They examine the grounds on which a judge in a lower court based his/her judgement and either support or overturn it.

From the SC judgement..



At the centre of this trial, there is a conflict between two existing rights, the right to good name and reputation of the claimants (through the presumption of innocence that they always were entitled to) and the right to freedom of expression of the defendant, in the concrete field of the right to opinion he is entitled..



Could they have been any clearer.... The ECHR have an interesting article on this very point which I have cited many times


You can claim anything you wish... But it's clear from the, SC  what was at the heart of the trial

[G-Unit]

From the SC judgement..



At the centre of this trial, there is a conflict between two existing rights, the right to good name and reputation of the claimants (through the presumption of innocence that they always were entitled to) and the right to freedom of expression of the defendant, in the concrete field of the right to opinion he is entitled..



Could they have been any clearer.... The ECHR have an interesting article on this very point which I have cited many times


You can claim anything you wish... But it's clear from the, SC  what was at the heart of the trial

Please provide the page number.

[Mr Gray]

Please provide the page number.

its page 5 on the link you yourself provided

[Mr Gray]

I understand that you have been unable to counter my (cited) posts with anything of substance.

At the centre of this trial, there is a conflict between two existing rights, the right to good name and reputation of the claimants (through the presumption of innocence that they always were entitled to) and the right to freedom of expression of the defendant, in the concrete field of the right to opinion he is entitled..


nothing about "duty of reserve"....its quite clear what is at the heart of the dispute

[G-Unit]

its page 5 on the link you yourself provided

I thought it looked familiar; it's taken from the first instance judgement. Not everything in that document is the opinion of the SC judges; their bit doesn't begin until page 48 onwards;

Pages 1-39/40 Taken from the first judgement.
Pages 40, 2.2-44 Duartes arguments.
Pages 45, 2.3-48 Guerra & Paz response.
Page 48 onwards; the judges findings.

Just to prove my point, here's where it originated; on page 35 in the first judgement;

II. At the centre of this trial, there is a conflict between two existing rights, the right to good name and reputation of the claimants (through the presumption of innocence that they always were entitled to) and the right  to freedom of expression of the defendant, in the concrete field of the right to opinion he is entitled to.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=6307.0