Gerry McCann tried to talk about dogs when he gave evidence. The judge wasn't interested;
GMC - I want to speak about the sniffer dogs. They never alerted to any blood in the car and they never alerted to cadaver odour...
Judge [interrupts] – We are not here to ascertain that, our perspective here in this court is to analyse your claim.
GMC – But the book mentions facts that aren't true.
Judge – To decide that there are already forensic experts. We are not here to prove if the contents of the book are truthful or not. Here we are only trying to establish if the freedom of expression of the defendants has affected the rights of the claimants. This court cannot be a substitute of the criminal investigation. [Turns to the interpreter] Tell the gentleman that he is excused.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=4746.0
I'm obviously aware of this but what I read from the ECHR about the balance between articles 8 and 10 is that they consider the veracity of the evidence... Which makes sense.
Its like honest opinion. If the allegations being made are backed by strong evidence then free speech may have precedence.
In a Guardian article it was said that Almeida.. Who wrote the interim report... Said the main evidence against the McCanns was the dog alerts.... Which the Pj was told had no evidential value or reliability.
So in short Amarals opinions were not based on reliable evidence.... From what I have read that will go against Portugal at the ECHR
