McCanns appeal to the European Court of Human Rights

[Mr Gray]

My there's a lot of hilarity about recently. It was Kate McCann who suggested all three of her children were possibly sedated (three months after the disappearance). Hence Amaral's observations on the subject. Allegedly the initial report from the FSS said DNA very similar to Madeleine's was present in the hire car.

I've already looked at all the claims r e the supposed initial report.. Its total BS with nothing to support it

[John]

Reposting due to overzealous moderation.

It's demonstrably false to say there's no evidence at all against the McCanns.
Martin Smith's sighting of Gerry is evidence.

Yes it is evidence in the case but not evidence against anyone in particular since even Gerry couldn't have been in two places at the same time as the last time I looked it was still contrary to the known laws of physics.

ETA. At least not at this stage.

[Wonderfulspam]

Yes it is evidence in the case but not evidence against anyone in particular since even Gerry couldn't have been in two places at the same time as the last time I looked it was still contrary to the known laws of physics.

ETA. At least not at this stage.

Conclusive evidence or proof? No. It would need to be confirmed in some way. But it's still evidence. Davel understands this, he has previously described it as very weak evidence. It's evidence none the less. If the McCanns had been charged & taken to trial, had Martin Smith been called to testify as a witness, he would have been giving evidence. This shouldn't need explaining every time, but supporters will insist on making the false claim that there is no evidence at all, against the McCanns, when there is. Just nothing sufficient to charge. Much like Christian Brueckner. There is evidence against him. But it will never see the inside of a court room, because it's laughably contestable.

[Mr Gray]

Conclusive evidence or proof? No. It would need to be confirmed in some way. But it's still evidence. Davel understands this, he has previously described it as very weak evidence. It's evidence none the less. If the McCanns had been charged & taken to trial, had Martin Smith been called to testify as a witness, he would have been giving evidence. This shouldn't need explaining every time, but supporters will insist on making the false claim that there is no evidence at all, against the McCanns, when there is. Just nothing sufficient to charge. Much like Christian Brueckner. There is evidence against him. But it will never see the inside of a court room, because it's laughably contestable.

We know all the evidence against the McCanns..
W don't know all the evidence against. CB

[Wonderfulspam]

We know all the evidence against the McCanns..
W don't know all the evidence against. CB

We are welcome to hazard a guess as to what possible evidence against CB the police could have. I have a thread devoted to that very question. It doesn't get many participants though.

[G-Unit]

Where's your cite for the initial report.. I'm convinced the details you suggest re  total lie.. And you simply believe it

Of these 19 components 15 are present within the result from this item
https://mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/JOHN_LOWE.htm

[Eleanor]

Of these 19 components 15 are present within the result from this item
https://mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/JOHN_LOWE.htm

What does this prove?

[Venturi Swirl]

Of these 19 components 15 are present within the result from this item
https://mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/JOHN_LOWE.htm

Do you mean the report that concluded


“In my opinion, the laboratory results that were attained did not help to clarify whether or not the DNA results obtained within the scope of this case were from Madeleine McCann.”

[Eleanor]

Do you mean the report that concluded


“In my opinion, the laboratory results that were attained did not help to clarify whether or not the DNA results obtained within the scope of this case were from Madeleine McCann.”

Oh Dear Oh Dear Oh Dear.

[Mr Gray]

Of these 19 components 15 are present within the result from this item
https://mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/JOHN_LOWE.htm

Are you referring tto this as an initial report

[G-Unit]

Are you referring tto this as an initial report

There is no initial report; I did say alleged. Was there an earlier one without the caveats? I don't know, but the figures are there.

[Venturi Swirl]

Kate McCann followed her lawyers advice, but once back in England she decided to use Rogerio Alves to represent her in Portugal in future. This, she said, was because she and her husband were concerned about their lawyer's behaviour and attitude during the arguido interview period. Her husband remained with Carlos Pinto de Abreu, however. Despite Kate's use of the royal 'we' Gerry, it seems, wasn't concerned enough to change his lawyer.
[madeleine page 286]

By 2020, however, Alves was being quoted as representing both of the McCanns.

As I suspected.  Your little precis above is more thsn a little disingenuous, hence why presumably you failed to acknowledge my request for a verbatim quote.

Kate makes it clear in her book theor reasons for hiring Alves: “we rejoined the others an hour later, discussed our strategy, decided upon a plan and worked out who would be doing what.  it was agreed Rogério would join the legsl team.  He and Carlos knew each other well and were a good combination: Carlos was a details man while Rogério, who was president of the Portuguese Bar, had a high profile in Portugal and a good working relationship with the media.  Between them, it was felt, we would have all the angles covered.  Rogério would represent me in Portugsl while Carlos continued to act for Gerry”.

Now, what is the big deal with that and where do you imagine Kate McCann is using the “royal we” and not speaking for Gerry as well?
Or were you just taking the opportunity to be snide as I said all along?

[Mr Gray]

There is no initial report; I did say alleged. Was there an earlier one without the caveats? I don't know, but the figures are there.

you referred to an alleged initial report ...I merely pointed out there is no evidence...not even the tiniest amount to show it exists. Its a lie started by sceptics...
as for the caveats...according to Sandra F in the netflix doc...Amaral only read the first paragrah and no more. he read the 15 out of 19 markers but not thecontext. before you ask....perlin could not help the case at all...and hes never claimed he could

[Brietta]

Kate McCann followed her lawyers advice, but once back in England she decided to use Rogerio Alves to represent her in Portugal in future. This, she said, was because she and her husband were concerned about their lawyer's behaviour and attitude during the arguido interview period. Her husband remained with Carlos Pinto de Abreu, however. Despite Kate's use of the royal 'we' Gerry, it seems, wasn't concerned enough to change his lawyer.
[madeleine page 286]

By 2020, however, Alves was being quoted as representing both of the McCanns.

Now https://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=8465.msg699459#msg699459  that we have read the actual words your precis has adulterated somewhat and just to maintain balance, is there any chance you would indicate how many times Amaral's lawyers were changed over the course of the libel trial.  Would you care to read into that the significance of those changes.

[G-Unit]

Now https://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=8465.msg699459#msg699459  that we have read the actual words your precis has adulterated somewhat and just to maintain balance, is there any chance you would indicate how many times Amaral's lawyers were changed over the course of the libel trial.  Would you care to read into that the significance of those changes.

Did Amaral offer an incomplete explanation of why he changed his lawyers?