McCanns appeal to the European Court of Human Rights

[G-Unit]

It would be more helpful if you could give us an example of a fact and a true fact from the case we are discussing.

Why? The case we are discussing is the defamation trial and the question to be answered was whether Amaral's book used facts recorded in the PJ files. The answer was that he did. Perhaps Mr Grey might be interested in trying to identify which facts in the PJ files were actually true? Imo there are true facts, but the only ones which can be proved to be true are those such as the names and ages of witnesses.

[Venturi Swirl]

Why? The case we are discussing is the defamation trial and the question to be answered was whether Amaral's book used facts recorded in the PJ files. The answer was that he did. Perhaps Mr Grey might be interested in trying to identify which facts in the PJ files were actually true? Imo there are true facts, but the only ones which can be proved to be true are those such as the names and ages of witnesses.

I don't think talking about facts as distinct from true facts is in any way helpful.  It is a fact that the Interim report stated that it was an undeniable fact that the sofa had been moved and that Madeleine died in the apartment.  But it is not a fact that the sofa had been moved and that Madeleine died in the apartment.  It would be more useful to talk about facts and opinions IMO, just like we do on here, where incidentally we are not allowed to state opinions as facts. 

[Mr Gray]

How many more times do you need things explaining to you? Read this thread.

If we tra,slate your post into english it reads that you cannot answer the question......thats the truth...what you are saying isnt.

so in simple terms plase answer the question Iasked....I think you havent because you cant... prove me wrong and I will apologise

[G-Unit]

I don't think talking about facts as distinct from true facts is in any way helpful.  It is a fact that the Interim report stated that it was an undeniable fact that the sofa had been moved and that Madeleine died in the apartment.  But it is not a fact that the sofa had been moved and that Madeleine died in the apartment.  It would be more useful to talk about facts and opinions IMO, just like we do on here, where incidentally we are not allowed to state opinions as facts.

Facts and true facts are what Mr Grey is focussing upon, not me. I don't think it's relevant but he does. He thinks it's true that the files contained 'lies', but that is his opinion, not something he or you can prove.

[Mr Gray]

 

A fact is simply a true statement. A true statement is not the same as a statement of truth.
https://www.rollinsperformancegroup.com/blog/the-difference-between-facts-and-truth

your post was about facts...not statements

so a fact is a true statement...good...so whats a true fact..

[Mr Gray]

Facts and true facts are what Mr Grey is focussing upon, not me. I don't think it's relevant but he does. He thinks it's true that the files contained 'lies', but that is his opinion, not something he or you can prove.

Im talking about facts and what the portuguese court refer to as proven facts..

To claim the dog alerted to cadaver is a fact...proven fact ...is a lie...no opinion...its a false claim. the alert may have been to cadaver but its not a fact...to claim it is ....is a lie.

[Mr Gray]

Facts and true facts are what Mr Grey is focussing upon, not me. I don't think it's relevant but he does. He thinks it's true that the files contained 'lies', but that is his opinion, not something he or you can prove.

Almeida stated in the files that the dog had 100 per cent record...it doesnt...a proven lie

[G-Unit]

Im talking about facts and what the portuguese court refer to as proven facts..

To claim the dog alerted to cadaver is a fact...proven fact ...is a lie...no opinion...its a false claim. the alert may have been to cadaver but its not a fact...to claim it is ....is a lie.

your post was about facts...not statements

so a fact is a true statement...good...so whats a true fact..

There is one true fact in the files, according to the judge; that Madeleine disappeared. She does explain how she arrived at the 'proven facts' and what is meant by that. I don't expect you to understand though.

Art 27 and 28. The decision concerning this issue faces, firstly, the problem of the dichotomy between "facts ascertained during the investigating process" and "facts that also are part of the investigating process". If “acts ascertained in the investigation" refers to those which, with rigour and according to the procedural-penal dogma, are the result of the investigation that was achieved, then only one deserves this qualification – the disappearance of Madeleine McCann.


All that is part of the investigation, beyond this fact, are clues, means of evidence*, means of obtaining evidence** and theses or hypotheses that are proper to an investigation shelved for lack of evidence. It will therefore be understood that, when are put together the “facts ascertained in the investigation” and the “facts that are part of the investigation”, it is referred to means of obtaining evidence, means of evidence and clues that constitute the proper investigation and are documented in the inquiry.
https://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/v02.htm

Therefore;

27. Are the facts that are reported by defendant Gonçalo Amaral in the book and in the aforementioned interviews, like he himself writes and said, facts that were established during the inquiry?

28. Does the documentary only contain facts that are also in the inquiry files?

(Items 27 & 28) It is proved that the facts in the book and in the documentary, concerning the investigation, are mostly facts that took place in the investigation and are documented as such.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=5931.0

[Mr Gray]

There is one true fact in the files, according to the judge; that Madeleine disappeared. She does explain how she arrived at the 'proven facts' and what is meant by that. I don't expect you to understand though.

Art 27 and 28. The decision concerning this issue faces, firstly, the problem of the dichotomy between "facts ascertained during the investigating process" and "facts that also are part of the investigating process". If “acts ascertained in the investigation" refers to those which, with rigour and according to the procedural-penal dogma, are the result of the investigation that was achieved, then only one deserves this qualification – the disappearance of Madeleine McCann.


All that is part of the investigation, beyond this fact, are clues, means of evidence*, means of obtaining evidence** and theses or hypotheses that are proper to an investigation shelved for lack of evidence. It will therefore be understood that, when are put together the “facts ascertained in the investigation” and the “facts that are part of the investigation”, it is referred to means of obtaining evidence, means of evidence and clues that constitute the proper investigation and are documented in the inquiry.
https://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/v02.htm

Therefore;

27. Are the facts that are reported by defendant Gonçalo Amaral in the book and in the aforementioned interviews, like he himself writes and said, facts that were established during the inquiry?

28. Does the documentary only contain facts that are also in the inquiry files?

(Items 27 & 28) It is proved that the facts in the book and in the documentary, concerning the investigation, are mostly facts that took place in the investigation and are documented as such.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=5931.0

I asked you to explain...but you cant....so you simply copy and paste a translation of what the judge says...

You have still not answered when and where wer the proven facts established.

my post on the case which you criticised  was my understanding in my own words...yours is  a copy and paste because you have no understanding

[Venturi Swirl]

Facts and true facts are what Mr Grey is focussing upon, not me. I don't think it's relevant but he does. He thinks it's true that the files contained 'lies', but that is his opinion, not something he or you can prove.

I believe it was you who first drew the distinction between "facts" and "true facts". The files contain an interpretation of some facts stated as fact when they are merely opinion and that's a fact!

[Mr Gray]

Why? The case we are discussing is the defamation trial and the question to be answered was whether Amaral's book used facts recorded in the PJ files. The answer was that he did. Perhaps Mr Grey might be interested in trying to identify which facts in the PJ files were actually true? Imo there are true facts, but the only ones which can be proved to be true are those such as the names and ages of witnesses.

I would say you don't have a clue..
The most important FACT being it WASNT a defamation trial..if it had been the McCann's would have won...I'll explain later..busy now

[Mr Gray]

This is my take on the whole issue...im not being arrogant and saying I understand everything....but I think my explanation ticks all the boxes.
 
the initial trial was not a libel trial it was a damages trial for the hurt and anguish that Amarals claims had caused to the McCanns. the Judge in this trial said it was not  important if the facts were true or not..it was a question re did Amaral have the right to say these things. we didnt hear all the evidence and applications but from what I can gather the McCanns lawyers argued he didnt....not because of libel but because of his duty of reserve.....thats why the facts were not important. The McCanns won £1.2 million in damages and were happy.

Amaral appealed and it was decided by the second court who decided he wasnt restricted by the duty of reserve and reversed the decision.

McCanns appeal and say he may not be bound by the duty of reserve but his claims were defamatory. their problem now is they cannot revisit the facts from the first trial ...appeals dont allow that. therefore to facts presented by Amaral at the first trial become set in stone. SC rule no defamation......ECHR rule no defamation based on the established  facts, facts taht as they were not challenged at the first trial become establishe dfacts taht cannot be challenged in any subsequent appeal.

Had the Mccanns claimed libel in the first trial...the facts would have been chalenged ..diiscarded and they would have won.

I blame their lawyers.... I may be totally wrong... but I dont think so...if anyone can challenge any of my points i would be interested

[G-Unit]

This is my take on the whole issue...im not being arrogant and saying I understand everything....but I think my explanation ticks all the boxes.
 
the initial trial was not a libel trial it was a damages trial for the hurt and anguish that Amarals claims had caused to the McCanns. the Judge in this trial said it was not  important if the facts were true or not..it was a question re did Amaral have the right to say these things. we didnt hear all the evidence and applications but from what I can gather the McCanns lawyers argued he didnt....not because of libel but because of his duty of reserve.....thats why the facts were not important. The McCanns won £1.2 million in damages and were happy.

Amaral appealed and it was decided by the second court who decided he wasnt restricted by the duty of reserve and reversed the decision.

McCanns appeal and say he may not be bound by the duty of reserve but his claims were defamatory. their problem now is they cannot revisit the facts from the first trial ...appeals dont allow that. therefore to facts presented by Amaral at the first trial become set in stone. SC rule no defamation......ECHR rule no defamation based on the established  facts, facts taht as they were not challenged at the first trial become establishe dfacts taht cannot be challenged in any subsequent appeal.

Had the Mccanns claimed libel in the first trial...the facts would have been chalenged ..diiscarded and they would have won.

I blame their lawyers.... I may be totally wrong... but I dont think so...if anyone can challenge any of my points i would be interested

You seem to have found an explanation which allows you to accept the court's decisions, so carry on.

[Venturi Swirl]

This is my take on the whole issue...im not being arrogant and saying I understand everything....but I think my explanation ticks all the boxes.
 
the initial trial was not a libel trial it was a damages trial for the hurt and anguish that Amarals claims had caused to the McCanns. the Judge in this trial said it was not  important if the facts were true or not..it was a question re did Amaral have the right to say these things. we didnt hear all the evidence and applications but from what I can gather the McCanns lawyers argued he didnt....not because of libel but because of his duty of reserve.....thats why the facts were not important. The McCanns won £1.2 million in damages and were happy.

Amaral appealed and it was decided by the second court who decided he wasnt restricted by the duty of reserve and reversed the decision.

McCanns appeal and say he may not be bound by the duty of reserve but his claims were defamatory. their problem now is they cannot revisit the facts from the first trial ...appeals dont allow that. therefore to facts presented by Amaral at the first trial become set in stone. SC rule no defamation......ECHR rule no defamation based on the established  facts, facts taht as they were not challenged at the first trial become establishe dfacts taht cannot be challenged in any subsequent appeal.

Had the Mccanns claimed libel in the first trial...the facts would have been chalenged ..diiscarded and they would have won.

I blame their lawyers.... I may be totally wrong... but I dont think so...if anyone can challenge any of my points i would be interested

sounds entirely plausible and logical.

[Mr Gray]

You seem to have found an explanation which allows you to accept the court's decisions, so carry on.

What an ungracious response...I won't rub your nose in it you must be feeling very inferior. I note you cannot contradict one statement I have made. The difference between us is I got the result wrong but I understand why..others were right but haven't got a clue why .I place you in that gr iup. Id much rather be the one who actually understands the principles involved. You've offered nothing but a cut and paste whereas I've provided a perfectly logical reasoned argument that no one else has come up with.
The facts proposed by the PJ became proven as regards that particular trial as soon as the verdict in the McCann's favour was made in the first trial.