McCanns appeal to the European Court of Human Rights

[Icanhandlethetruth]

Do you accept its not relevant to this case.. If it isn't then why mention it.
If the Mcccanns win then it looks as though I do understand the law better. Portugal success rate for accepted cases at the ECHR  is 4 %.. That doesn't look too good

I don’t know if its relevant or not, you raised it first, explain its irrelevance to me.
And if the McCanns win, then what happens?
Some context also, what is Greece's or Italy or even the UK's success rate at the ECHR?

[The General]

He stated as fact that he could prove Madeleine died in the apartment did he not?  So it's not an opinion.   You could argue that if he says "I saw Gerry" it was only his opinion he saw Gerry and he may have been mistaken.  How do you decide what is and isn't someone's opinion?

Well apparently HCW could tip the scales in their favour. They should get together and talk about all of these facets really.

[jassi]

I don’t know if its relevant or not, you raised it first, explain its irrelevance to me.
And if the McCanns win, then what happens?
Some context also, what is Greece's or Italy or even the UK's success rate at the ECHR?

They might get a few pennies thrown their way and Portugal will take account of the ruling when making future judgments.

[Icanhandlethetruth]

He stated as fact that he could prove Madeleine died in the apartment did he not?  So it's not an opinion.   You could argue that if he says "I saw Gerry" it was only his opinion he saw Gerry and he may have been mistaken.  How do you decide what is and isn't someone's opinion?

The book is purely hypothesis based on the evidence as listed in the archiving report, it is not fact. It is opinion. If you really have a problem with the ruling by the Supreme Court then take  it up with them. I am only reporting the fact the appeal court and the SC found in Amaral's favour and decided that it wasn't libel.

[Icanhandlethetruth]

Of course the book is opinion... But is it honest opinion and does that rule apply. In Portugal. The ECHR seem to have a similar principle to it but Amaral falls far short of it.
It may be opinion but he's stating it as fact. Opinion can be defamatory

How does Amaral fall far short of it? How can it be proved if its honest opinion or not?
The case has happened, the rule applied, twice.

[Mr Gray]

I don’t know if its relevant or not, you raised it first, explain its irrelevance to me.
And if the McCanns win, then what happens?
Some context also, what is Greece's or Italy or even the UK's success rate at the ECHR?

#first i dont calim to know more re portuguese law than the Judges...thats an absurd suggestion by you...but I know judges make mistakes. portugalls success rate at teh ECHR compares very poorly to other developed countries.

As to what that line means...imo it doesnt maen taht the POI is not relavent on a civil case.
It means taht in a civil case subsequent to a criminal case where compensation is claimed...the POI doesn not apply. How clever of me to work taht out. So Barry George cant use the POI to claim compensation for his criminal case. that is not the situation here....so why did they refer to it.

If you look at the link I posted yesterday from the ECHR it mentions the POI in relation to defamation and article 8.

If the McCanns win...then armed with that judgement if amaral says the same again they can sue and pretty well be guaranteed of success. they may well evn be able to get thebook banned again with a new action

That IMO is why hes stopped hs defamation lately

[Mr Gray]

How does Amaral fall far short of it? How can it be proved if its honest opinion or not?
The case has happened, the rule applied, twice.

Honest opinion as  a defence is not just what a person happens to beleive...have you looked at what it entails

[Mr Gray]

Honest opinion has to be based on true facts and the palintif has to prove those facts. Tavares de Almeida said at the trial that the main evidence against the McCanns was the dog alerts. So what facts did amaral rely on and has he proved they are true.

The dog alerts to cadaver and the dna in the car which matched Maddie...neither confirmed to be true...so his opinion is not supported

[Eleanor]

I can't believe that we are still arguing about this.  Amaral was on the radar as being a dishonourable man way back in 2002 when he cheated his brother.  Case proven in Court.

And then he was made Arguido on The 4th of May 2007 in the case of another missing child.  A Case that he lost.  He was convicted of Perjury.
How can anyone believe a word he says?

[kizzy]

Honest opinion as  a defence is not just what a person happens to beleive...have you looked at what it entails

what a person happens to beleive

True - like most of your posts you don't know more than anyone else... only that you believe you do.

GA was an investigating officer this is how he concluded his theories in a book.

As yet no one has proved him wrong.

[G-Unit]

I can't believe that we are still arguing about this.  Amaral was on the radar as being a dishonourable man way back in 2002 when he cheated his brother.  Case proven in Court.

And then he was made Arguido on The 4th of May 2007 in the case of another missing child.  A Case that he lost.  He was convicted of Perjury.
How can anyone believe a word he says?

The courts were not asked to judge his past conduct or his character. They were asked to decide if he defamed the McCanns and their children in his book, the DVD narrative or his interview with Correio da Manhã, published in the edition of July 24, 2008.

[Mr Gray]

what a person happens to beleive

True - like most of your posts you don't know more than anyone else... only that you believe you do.

GA was an investigating officer this is how he concluded his theories in a book.

As yet no one has proved him wrong.

Im not really interested in what you happen to believe.

[Mr Gray]

The courts were not asked to judge his past conduct or his character. They were asked to decide if he defamed the McCanns and their children in his book, the DVD narrative or his interview with Correio da Manhã, published in the edition of July 24, 2008.

They did not answer that question. The question they answered was taht amarals right to free speech was more important than the mccanns right not to be defamed

[kizzy]

im not really interested in what you happen to believe

Snap

But in reality, what you believe is full of ifs buts and maybes and wait and see.

You only believe GA was wrong in his opinions.

All the years that have passed he has never been proved to be wrong.

The book still being there and not banned keeps alive the mccs could be involved IMO

Although I also have my own reasons they are involved  -you have your reasons they are not.

Interested or not D we are both just simple posters on a forum with different beliefs ...that's all.

[Mr Gray]

Snap

But in reality, what you believe is full of ifs buts and maybes and wait and see.

You only believe GA was wrong in his opinions.

All the years that have passed he has never been proved to be wrong.

The book still being there and not banned keeps alive the mccs could be involved IMO

Although I also have my own reasons they are same as your reasons they are not.

Interested or not D we are both just simple posters on a forum with different beliefs ...that's all.

I think you beleive a total load of rubbish. All the evidence amaral used to reach his conclusions are discredited. Hes  a convicted liar who didnt understand d the evidence...and was sacked. The thread is re the ECHR. Ive looked at lots of ECHR law... regulations...and past cases balancing articles 10 and 8. Thats what I base my opinions on. Have you looked at anything.

You can describe yourself as a simple poster...
I'm a very well read and well informed poster