McCanns appeal to the European Court of Human Rights

[sadie]

No. Just remember all what was said in the past.

Well said Rob

IMO the constant calls for cites when it has all been thoroughly discussed before, with conclusions reached based upon evidence, is just a method of disrupting and wasting the original posters time.  Also diverting away from what that poster said. 

Some of these topics have been disected and analysed 3 or 4 times before over the months/years and sound conclusions reached based upon solid evidence, yet it seems that some like to have "forgotten" the solid fact based conclusions reached.

An easy tool for disruption and breaking the flow innit?

[G-Unit]

In my opinion it is failure to do just that which keeps our feet firmly cemented in groundhog day.

It has been a long and winding road ... but here we are with innocents knocking at the door of the ECHR ... there are those who may wish to airbrush how they got here from history ... but in my opinion the wording of the SC ruling is a neon road sign the meaning of which was eminently clear.

I have repeated the same points many times on this forum. That has never allowed me to be excused from providing cites.

[stephen25000]

Well said Rob

IMO the constant calls for cites when it has all been thoroughly discussed before, with conclusions reached based upon evidence, is just a method of disrupting and wasting the original posters time.  Also diverting away from what that poster said. 

Some of these topics have been disected and analysed 3 or 4 times before over the months/years and sound conclusions reached based upon solid evidence, yet it seems that some like to have "forgotten" the solid fact based conclusions reached.

An easy tool for disruption and breaking the flow innit?

Perhaps you should take note on that Sadie.

You claim to have theories,  yet are unable to provide  evidence for those.

[stephen25000]

In my opinion it is failure to do just that which keeps our feet firmly cemented in groundhog day.

It has been a long and winding road ... but here we are with innocents knocking at the door of the ECHR ... there are those who may wish to airbrush how they got here from history ... but in my opinion the wording of the SC ruling is a neon road sign the meaning of which was eminently clear.

In what regard exactly ?

[sadie]

It wasn't there own garden though , was it. fgs

As you well know it was an apartment , at the side of a main road.

As for the 30 min checks, they may as well have been half hour away.

They couldn't hear them cry, or know if they had an accident.

They left them on there own, they walked away to a tapas bar.

Kiizzy you are confusing it with their HOME garden.  It was their own garden for the period that they had booked and paid to stay there; their own holiday garden

It was not on a main road; it was on the corner of two minor roads with very little traffick.

They were just over 70 metres walking distance ... and that would take a matter of seconds rather than minutes

In their beds, they couldn't see them or hear them cry, that is true.  However, many parents in their own homes cannot see or hear their children as they sleep either (Mansion type homes) with the living quarters a good distance from the bedrooms. 

Also the method they used was superior to the well accepted Butlins method, where someone rode around on a bicylce approx every half hour and put an ear to the door/window.   The Mccanns went into the apartment and checked that way. 

Do please remember that after Matts listening check at the window, Gerry felt unable to accept that and personally went immediately afterwards to visually check the children.  That is a sign of a caring parent.

They were NOT at the Tapas Bar, they were eating their meal at the Tapas RESTAURANT, which is a seperate building


May I suggest that you read back a bit before making sweeping statements which were ALL wrong, either partially or completely

[sadie]

Perhaps you should take note on that Sadie.

You claim to have theories,  yet are unable to provide  evidence for those.

I will not be disclosing them on here, my main theories are with SY and may yet be used to help prove some things against an abductor.

[Angelo222]

I will not be disclosing them on here, my main theories are with SY and may yet be used to help prove some things against an abductor.

Don't you agree this entire abductor thingy is wearing a bit thin?  I have my own theory about what happened that night between 9.10 and 9.30pm.

[G-Unit]

Well said Rob

IMO the constant calls for cites when it has all been thoroughly discussed before, with conclusions reached based upon evidence, is just a method of disrupting and wasting the original posters time.  Also diverting away from what that poster said. 

Some of these topics have been disected and analysed 3 or 4 times before over the months/years and sound conclusions reached based upon solid evidence, yet it seems that some like to have "forgotten" the solid fact based conclusions reached.

An easy tool for disruption and breaking the flow innit?

I have noticed a tendency for members to post opinion as fact. In my opinion this is an opinion;

Post #245 http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=8465.240
The mere fact that the SC referred to the McCanns not having demonstrated their innocence is evidence that the scales were not balanced

My first question is did the SC actually say in their 75 page judgement that the McCanns had not demonstrated their innocence? I don't know if they did or not without a cite. More importantly, if those words to appear, why were they included. They may be evidence that the scales were not balanced or they may not. It's not possible to assess the assertion and to reply to it without seeing this 'evidence' and it's context.

[G-Unit]

Kiizzy you are confusing it with their HOME garden.  It was their own garden for the period that they had booked and paid to stay there; their own holiday garden

It was not on a main road; it was on the corner of two minor roads with very little traffick.

They were just over 70 metres walking distance ... and that would take a matter of seconds rather than minutes

In their beds, they couldn't see them or hear them cry, that is true.  However, many parents in their own homes cannot see or hear their children as they sleep either (Mansion type homes) with the living quarters a good distance from the bedrooms. 

Also the method they used was superior to the well accepted Butlins method, where someone rode around on a bicylce approx every half hour and put an ear to the door/window.   The Mccanns went into the apartment and checked that way. 

Do please remember that after Matts listening check at the window, Gerry felt unable to accept that and personally went immediately afterwards to visually check the children.  That is a sign of a caring parent.

They were NOT at the Tapas Bar, they were eating their meal at the Tapas RESTAURANT, which is a seperate building


May I suggest that you read back a bit before making sweeping statements which were ALL wrong, either partially or completely

The Tapas complex was for the use of all Ocean Club clients, just as the Millenium complex was.

[kizzy]

Kiizzy you are confusing it with their HOME garden.  It was their own garden for the period that they had booked and paid to stay there; their own holiday garden

It was not on a main road; it was on the corner of two minor roads with very little traffick.

They were just over 70 metres walking distance ... and that would take a matter of seconds rather than minutes

In their beds, they couldn't see them or hear them cry, that is true.  However, many parents in their own homes cannot see or hear their children as they sleep either (Mansion type homes) with the living quarters a good distance from the bedrooms. 

Also the method they used was superior to the well accepted Butlins method, where someone rode around on a bicylce approx every half hour and put an ear to the door/window.   The Mccanns went into the apartment and checked that way. 

Do please remember that after Matts listening check at the window, Gerry felt unable to accept that and personally went immediately afterwards to visually check the children.  That is a sign of a caring parent.

They were NOT at the Tapas Bar, they were eating their meal at the Tapas RESTAURANT, which is a seperate building


May I suggest that you read back a bit before making sweeping statements which were ALL wrong, either partially or completely

O M G sadie it wasnt there home/garden was it. 

Your own home ,front door locked back door leading to garden.

not half the street using it.

They were in a bar, eating drinking.

Butlins was perhaps unsafe, just the same as them leaving three children alone. [on holiday]

They fight for there rights, where as maddie didn't have a choice

[barrier]

I have noticed a tendency for members to post opinion as fact. In my opinion this is an opinion;

Post #245 http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=8465.240
The mere fact that the SC referred to the McCanns not having demonstrated their innocence is evidence that the scales were not balanced

My first question is did the SC actually say in their 75 page judgement that the McCanns had not demonstrated their innocence? I don't know if they did or not without a cite. More importantly, if those words to appear, why were they included. They may be evidence that the scales were not balanced or they may not. It's not possible to assess the assertion and to reply to it without seeing this 'evidence' and it's context.

This is what was said.
Page 70.

And let not be said, too, that the appellants were cleared by the order of filing the criminal proceedings.
In fact, that dispatch was not proclaimed by virtue of the Public Ministry having gained the conviction that the appellants had not committed any crime (cf. art. 277° of the CPP).
The filing, in this case, was decided because it was not possible for Public Ministry to obtain sufficient evidence of the practice of crimes by the appellants (cf. the cited art. 277°-2)

There is, therefore, a remarkable difference, and not merely a semantic one, between the legally admissible grounds of the filing order.
Thus, it does not appear acceptable to consider that the alluded dispatch, based on the insufficiency of evidence, should be treated as evidence of innocence.

http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/Supreme_Court_31_01_2017.htm

[G-Unit]

This is what was said.
Page 70.http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/Supreme_Court_31_01_2017.htm

Thank you barrier. If that is what the poster was referring to then I have this to say.

The SC judges didn't, then, say that the McCanns had 'not demonstrated their innocence'. They said that they couldn't use the filing dispatch as evidence of their innocence. In my opinion that is an important difference.

What the judges said is also not ' evidence that the scales were not balanced'. It is evidence that the SC judges rejected Duarte's claim that the McCanns were cleared by the filing dispatch.

The reason they mentioned the subject at all was because the McCanns lawyer used it in her arguments. They therefore had to reply.

That is my opinion.

[misty]

I have noticed a tendency for members to post opinion as fact. In my opinion this is an opinion;

Post #245 http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=8465.240
The mere fact that the SC referred to the McCanns not having demonstrated their innocence is evidence that the scales were not balanced

My first question is did the SC actually say in their 75 page judgement that the McCanns had not demonstrated their innocence? I don't know if they did or not without a cite. More importantly, if those words to appear, why were they included. They may be evidence that the scales were not balanced or they may not. It's not possible to assess the assertion and to reply to it without seeing this 'evidence' and it's context.

From the SC judgement Jan 2017

 
Page 69
It must be reminded that, in the present case, the issue isn't the appellants' penal liability, in other words their innocence or their guilt concerning the facts leading to the disappearance of her daughter doesn't have to be appreciated here.

What is in discussion here is merely the civil liability of the respondents, on the grounds that they have expressed and disclosed the above-mentioned thesis/opinion on the disappearance in question.

It follows that the outcome of the present case is not such as to call into question the extra-procedural dimension of the presumption of innocence.

This means that, even if the action does not proceed, it will not imply, even in the eyes of the community. any consideration of the appellants' liability, because such outcome will never will be able to be equated to an observation of respective culpability (cf. on this topic the judgements Del Latte vs Holland (n°44760/98) of 9/11/2004 and Cheena vs Belgium of 9/5/2016).

In addition, we are faced with a decision of filing by the Public Ministry which is subject to modification through various ways.


Thus, in addition to the recourse to the jurisdictional way, by opening the inquiry (see note p.21) (art. 287° of the CPP) and the complaint to the hierarchical superior (art. 278° of the CPP), the investigation can be reopened if new elements of evidence arise invalidating the grounds called upon by the Public Ministry in the filing dispatch (art. 279° of the CPP).


This is indeed even mentioned in the Note to the Social Communication released by the Attorney General's office on 21/7/2008 and announcing that the filing of the investigation had been decided. It was reported that it could be reopened on the initiative of the Public Ministry or at the request of any interested party if new elements of evidence arise triggering serious, pertinent and consequential proceedings (n°14 of the proven facts).

In this way, as the aforementioned filing order is not a judicial decision stricto senso, nor does it assume a definitive form, less would it be justified invoking the principle of the presumption of innocence to restrain freedom of expression.

And the safeguarding of the authority of the judicial power (cf. article 10°-2 of the European Convention on Human Rights) is not alluded to, since is definitely outdated the traditional idea that criticism against the judicial power must be proscribed as it contributes to the undermining of its dignity, authority and credibility in the long term. The best guarantee of dignity of all State institutions in the long run consists in its permanent opening to public criticism.
 
Page 70
...(cf. Jónatas Machado, Freedom of Expression - Constitutional Dimensions, op. cit. pp. 566-7)

And let not be said, too, that the appellants were cleared by the order of filing the criminal proceedings.

In fact, that dispatch was not proclaimed by virtue of the Public Ministry having gained the conviction that the appellants had not committed any crime (cf. art. 277° of the CPP).

The filing, in this case, was decided because it was not possible for Public Ministry to obtain sufficient evidence of the practice of crimes by the appellants (cf. the cited art. 277°-2)

There is, therefore, a remarkable difference, and not merely a semantic one, between the legally admissible grounds of the filing order.

Thus, it does not appear acceptable to consider that the alluded dispatch, based on the insufficiency of evidence, should be treated as evidence of innocence.

We consider, therefore, that the invocation of breach of the principle of presumption of innocence should not be upheld. That principle does not fall under the decision about the question that has to be resolved.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
IMO the SC contradicts its own reasoning for not breaching the principle of presumption of innocence & the role it played in Amaral's rights.

[sadie]

The Tapas complex was for the use of all Ocean Club clients, just as the Millenium complex was.

Yes, and it was adjacent to their apartment and was like a back garden .  A big one with expensive things in it admittedly, but believe me some people have big gardens fitted out with a tennis Court and swimming pool + all the other things.

[G-Unit]

Yes, and it was adjacent to their apartment and was like a back garden .  A big one with expensive things in it admittedly, but believe me some people have big gardens fitted out with a tennis Court and swimming pool + all the other things.

The Millenium complex had most of the same facilities. It also had accommodation inside it's boundaries, unlike the Tapas complex. It still wasn't, in my opinion, a garden in any sense of the word. It was a complex containing facilities for all the guests, not just those staying within the complex.