McCanns appeal to the European Court of Human Rights

[Mr Gray]

Thats only Ifs..........but  anyway its not about CB though is it....an that charade

Its all about the mccs reputation ect ect same as it has always been....from day one.

An as already been said ....it will not alter anything about peoples opinion of the mccs.

If, by some chance, the ECHR finds that Portugal has breached the McCann's human rights they will have achieved more than if they had defeated Amaral. They will have discredited not just him, but his entire country.

[jassi]

Do you accept the converse position if they lose ?

[Brietta]

Why cant you get it.

the libellous claims of Amarel

They wasn't libelous.......because

G A fought the mccs and won.......he is out of it now.....he wasn't the looser...its not about him

If the European Court of Human Rights rules in favour of McCann and Healey I think there is a possibility that Amaral may not be "out of it now".

Bear in mind that Amaral has continued to slander and libel his way throughout the intervening years since the Portuguese Appeal Court judges made the ruling complained about in the ECHR.

I think he will be 'safe' for the time being until the Germans bring their action against Brueckner to conclusion.  After that, who knows.

It is worth contemplating that Amaral has also very publicly interfered in an active police investigation.  There could well be repercussions from that.

Sceptics might wish to put about that Amaral was a small cog in the machine, despite his claims to the contrary;
GA : Here, Miguel, you are wrong, what is in the book is the narrative of six month of investigation, during which I was in charge https://www.facebook.com/Madeleinemyths/posts/251527198594833/

I think that indeed it would have been a good idea for him to have kept a lower profile and bowed "out of it" while he still had a choice in the matter.

[jassi]

Not long now. Only a State Funeral to get through and then all will be revealed.

I doubt the result will be of world-shattering importance, whatever it is.

[Brietta]

Much might depend on how the media play this.

If McCann win will the media portray them as ultimately vindicated?

If McCann lose, will the media portray them as victims of injustice  ?

It'll be too much to expect simple straight-forward reporting and leave it at that.

Perhaps that might be a position better addressed by the myriad of pejorative sites and those individuals posting on them to give serious thought to before posting more ill informed misinformation as is their wont.

The media will put a slant on their copy; that is what they do; but there are recognised rules and regulations governing what that is.

[Brietta]

you really need to listen to someone who knows what they are talking about..thats me. i probably know more about the court and ECHR case than anyone else on any forum...including poulton...brown...the P resident......eevry one of them.

first the SC did not rule on whether the book was libellous....and the SC did noy say the mcCanns havent been proved innocece...yhey simply gave their opinion on the balance of rights re article 8 and 10....and they got it wrong and i can tell you why.

this case is all about amaral rights under articla 10 and the McCanns rights under article 8.
If you look at how the ECHR decide one of the major points is the veraciity of the claims ...in this case those made by amaral

The portuguese court made a mistake...even the court of the first instance...they said they were not there to consider the veracity of amarals claims..they would not let Gerry present his arguments re the dogs which would have shown amarals claims were not based on facts.....but on lies...thats contrary to the ECHRs stance...major error by portugal.

the mcCanns have quoted Springer vs Germnay where the ECHR ruked in favour of free speech...peter mac...who must be a bit thick on  the CMOMM site says he cant understand why the Mcs have cited a case where Free speech was ruled more important....i understand...it sbecause the claims were true and proved in court.


so the ECHR will look at the evidence and see whether amaral was right to pronounce the mccanns guilty...the dogs etc...they will look at that and may even give their opinions on them.   the archiving despatch said none of the evidence used to make the mccans guilty was confirmed..its in the files. so amaral is nmaking claims with no evidence to support them.

Based on all this I cannot see any way the ECHR will not find in the McCanns favour

The sad thing is that Amaral knew full well that the "interim report" which he continued to promote in his book and at every media opportunity over the years had long been superseded by the process.

GA : Here, Miguel, you are wrong, what is in the book is the narrative of six month of investigation, during which I was in charge, and the report concludes with certain suspicions that existed at that time and as you know,

criminal investigation has a beginning,

a middle

and an end,

and at that moment there were suspicions, which doesn't mean that later they couldn't be discarded
 https://www.facebook.com/Madeleinemyths/posts/251527198594833/

As they were.  Yet he did what he did and the Portuguese Supreme Court judges backed him up in their judgement.

I agree that it is highly likely that the European Court will find against Portugal on Tuesday for all the reasons you have succinctly summed up.

[Eleanor]

I remember that The PJ refused to give him permission to publish his book, which is why he resigned.  Are there any implications attached to this?

[Venturi Swirl]

Not long now. Only a State Funeral to get through and then all will be revealed.

I doubt the result will be of world-shattering importance, whatever it is.

Not world-shattering no, but no one ever claimed it would be.  I have no doubt you will be on here at 9am sharp on Tuesday with your bag of popcorn, keeping your fingers firmly crossed for bad news for the McCanns.

[Wonderfulspam]

All I'm interested in are Bhristian Crueckners rights.

[kizzy]

If, by some chance, the ECHR finds that Portugal has breached the McCann's human rights they will have achieved more than if they had defeated Amaral. They will have discredited not just him, but his entire country.

By some chance ....not predicting a win then...

It is nothing to do with Amaral anymore.

The rest is just your speculation

[jassi]

By some chance ....not predicting a win then...

It is nothing to do with Amaral anymore.

The rest is just your speculation

After the SC judgement it never was. 
All the ECHR are interested in is did Portugal ignore human rights when making their judgement.

[Mr Gray]

By some chance ....not predicting a win then...

It is nothing to do with Amaral anymore.

The rest is just your speculation

Thanks for your comment..it certainly isn't my speculation..


That post was made by gunit in another forum..gunit which you have a lot if respect for...on this occasion I think she's right

[Mr Gray]

By some chance ....not predicting a win then...

It is nothing to do with Amaral anymore.

The rest is just your speculation

You need to stop listening to the rubbish on pro Amaral forums...its everything to do with Amaral....have you read the latest echr release...could well see his book banned again

[Eleanor]

One more day to go after what has seemed to be an interminable wait.

The devil will be in the detail, if there is any, of course.

And of course it is about Amaral.  He wrote the wretched book wherein he Libelled The McCanns.  He had no proof that they were involved and still doesn't have any after Fifteen Years.  Although I don't know if this is relevant to The ECHR, yet.

[Brietta]

One more day to go after what has seemed to be an interminable wait.

The devil will be in the detail, if there is any, of course.

And of course it is about Amaral.  He wrote the wretched book wherein he Libelled The McCanns.  He had no proof that they were involved and still doesn't have any after Fifteen Years.  Although I don't know if this is relevant to The ECHR, yet.

His unfounded allegations are at the root of the approved malice directed against the continuation of seeking answers as to what happened to a missing child while at the same time impugning the innocence of her parents.

You would think that having been subjected to the closest scrutiny possible over the past fifteen years; having public pronouncements made as a result of that scrutiny in conjunction with other evidence by British, German and Portuguese police and prosecutors that neither the McCanns nor anyone associated with them were of the slightest interest to their investigations, the penny might have dropped.

I think the Supreme Court ruling which deliberately took away the right to the presumption of innocence has to play badly in the European court.
But as you say, the devil is in the detail.