McCanns appeal to the European Court of Human Rights

[John]

If he had a heart he wouldn't.

You forget that the McCanns tried to destroy Amaral using the Civil Court in Portugal. 

I would think this Application to the ECHR relates to the Supreme Court reference to innocence but it has to be remembered that the judgement was in a Civil Court and not a Criminal Court.

[John]

The appeal court judges representing the Portuguese State made the ruling against the McCanns.  It is that which the McCanns are taking to the ECHR.  The repercussions will arise from that court's ruling.

The fact that as yet no money has changed hands ... suggests to me that if the ruling of the ECHR finds for the McCanns, I suggest that would overturn the appeal court ruling against them.  Thus reinstating the status quo of the original Portuguese finding in their favour.

What a pity OxfordB no longer posts with us ... he would have been able to explain it all to us chapter and verse

One can only raise an Application to the ECHR against a State.  The question is, has a Application been raised against the UK or Portugal or both?

[stephen25000]

100% correct. Gonçalo Amaral has no involvement in any action raised by the McCann's at the ECHR, I do wish someone would explain this to Nick Pisa and The Sun.  The Application is against Portugal, not Gonçalo Amaral.

It has been explained.

Unfortunately, he is either ignoring it, or he is a few marbles short of a full load. Allegedly, of course.

[Benice]

I don't think the prosecutors saw it as 50/50;

whether she is still alive or if she is dead, as seems more likely.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/LEGAL_SUMMARY.htm

AFAIK -  a Portuguese attorney (Jose Magalhaes e Menezes) who was a witness at the trial told the court that he thought there was a 50/50 chance of Madeleine still being alive - when asked the question by Amaral's lawyer.

IIRC it is also the case the Amaral's lawyer originally asked for the case to be held in camera - in case Madeleine was still alive.  (from memory)

[Robittybob1]

100% correct. Gonçalo Amaral has no involvement in any action raised by the McCann's at the ECHR, I do wish someone would explain this to Nick Pisa and The Sun.  The Application is against Portugal, not Gonçalo Amaral.

Will the ECHR call on parties like Amaral and the McCanns to give evidence?

[slartibartfast]

Will the ECHR call on parties like Amaral and the McCanns to give evidence?

I wouldn't expect so. IMO it is purely a question of law not judgement.

[Robittybob1]

I wouldn't expect so. IMO it is purely a question of law not judgement.

So the real questions as to whether the SC was right to call the book opinion has to be decided.  Therefore does the ECHR have to understand whether GA claims in the book were opinions or comments designed to damage the McCanns in a sort of vendetta against them?

I have no problem with the rights of citizens having an opinion but who has the right to publish defamatory material?  How does one determine whether it is opinion or defamation?  That to me is the real question, and the judgement they got wrong.

[stephen25000]

So the real questions as to whether the SC was right to call the book opinion has to be decided.  Therefore does the ECHR have to understand whether GA claims in the book were opinions or comments designed to damage the McCanns in a sort of vendetta against them?

I have no problem with the rights of citizens having an opinion but who has the right to publish defamatory material?  How does one determine whether it is opinion or defamation?  That to me is the real question, and the judgement they got wrong.

What vendetta ?

That is Pro Mccann propaganda.

[Miss Taken Identity]

Amaral wrote a book discussing  a theory he and the PJ had with regards to what may have happened to a 'missing' child. They, for what ever reason, didn't believe the McCann's version of accounts of the run up to their daughter being missing. There is nothing illegal about that at all.

The McCanns quite rightly took offence to this, as they believed Amaral was trying to accuse them of something they claim they did not do- fair enough. But still no law is broken. It was the McCanns who instigated a CIVIL action against Amaral which after going to the supreme court was thrown out, as Freedom of speech is highly regarded and entrenched within  the ECHR.

It doesn't matter if the theory Is true or not just like it doesn't matter if the McCanns and their theory of abduction is true or not, the fact is Amaral had the freedom to write his into a book just like Kate did her theory in her book.

That should have been the end of the matter. Both sides writing books to discuss what they believed happened.

Why the McCanns feel they have more of a right than anyone else is beyond arrogance, one could argue that they had an  agenda to re direct a police investigation away from them using what ever means was available to them. Thus causing further suspicion.

It was during this tit for tat at the CIVIL court ( the McCanns tried to use it as a criminal court to their advantage but the Judge was having none of it), that it was indeed reiterated that the McCanns failed to convince the PJ that they played no part in their daughters disappearance. This could be narrowed down to a simple fact that they refuse to take any responsibility at all for their daughters fate. Whatever that was /is. I.E they are still suspected of playing a part whatever that part was /is.

Is this against their human rights well No. the police can continue to suspect them and hold a file in archived state and their is nothing illegal in that.

ECHR vs Portugal  in a claim that their PJ didn't believe the McCanns in a civil court will be an interesting read indeed.

Meanwhile- Amaral is exonerated and the McCanns are punching way above their weight. And they still owe court fees regardless or any ECHR outcome.

Maddie is still the loser in all this disgraceful behaviour in my opinion.

[G-Unit]

AFAIK -  a Portuguese attorney (Jose Magalhaes e Menezes) who was a witness at the trial told the court that he thought there was a 50/50 chance of Madeleine still being alive - when asked the question by Amaral's lawyer.

IIRC it is also the case the Amaral's lawyer originally asked for the case to be held in camera - in case Madeleine was still alive.  (from memory)

I can't find any transcript of the evidence of Jose Magalhaes e Menezes so I can't comment.

[Robittybob1]

What vendetta ?

That is Pro Mccann propaganda.

You have to look at it from both sides.

[Brietta]

Might I be allowed to make the attempt to remove yet another rather silly and petty digression from the thread topic.

The use of semantics choosing one aspect of something I have mentioned in a post is becoming as predictable as it is tiresome.

I said: "Can't you see it?  There is a 50/50 chance that Madeleine is dead ... there is a 50/50 chance that Madeleine is alive ... or at the least she was on the 4th May 2007."
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=8465.msg422735#msg422735

British Police Say Madeleine McCann May Still Be Alive
By SANDY MACASKILLAPRIL 25, 2012

Snip
“From the outset we have approached this review with a completely open mind, placing Madeleine McCann at the heart of everything we do,” Mr. Redwood said.

“We are working on the basis of two possibilities here. One is that Madeleine is still alive, and the second that she is sadly dead.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/26/world/europe/britain-reopens-the-madeleine-mccann-case.html

Two possibilities.
One ... Madeleine is still alive.
Second ... Madeleine is sadly dead.  To describe that as 50/50 seems fine to me ... others may have different thought processes which leads them to another conclusion ... that is entirely their prerogative.


Following from Benice's post regarding 50/50

    ////    ////    ////

11:20 : The first witness is being called by videoconference.

11:23 : It is the attorney who was in charge of the original inqury into Madeleine's disappearance, Jose Magalhaes e Menezes

    ////    ////    ////

11:39 : The decision to designate Kate and Gerry as 'arguidos' was taken after the sniffer dogs carried out their searches.

11:40 : There were several possible charges that could have been brought against the McCanns: kidnapping and selling a child were among them. s.

11:48 : The witness was asked what the probability was of Madeleine still being alive. He replied that he thought it was 50/50.
http://missingmadeleine.forumotion.net/t7174-sky-live-transcript-libel-case-complete


In my opinion a pattern is developing with spurious arguments being made using one aspect from my posts as ammunition ... if I could be bothered I would check back and prove it ... however I am aware of it and the disruption it is causing on the threads.
In future I will report anything which I think may be part of this pattern ... so now would be the time to desist.

[Alice Purjorick]

It would help if "probability", "possibility" "odds" and "chance" were not conflated with a consequential  error in how they are expressed.

[G-Unit]

Might I be allowed to make the attempt to remove yet another rather silly and petty digression from the thread topic.

The use of semantics choosing one aspect of something I have mentioned in a post is becoming as predictable as it is tiresome.

I said: "Can't you see it?  There is a 50/50 chance that Madeleine is dead ... there is a 50/50 chance that Madeleine is alive ... or at the least she was on the 4th May 2007."
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=8465.msg422735#msg422735

British Police Say Madeleine McCann May Still Be Alive
By SANDY MACASKILLAPRIL 25, 2012

Snip
“From the outset we have approached this review with a completely open mind, placing Madeleine McCann at the heart of everything we do,” Mr. Redwood said.

“We are working on the basis of two possibilities here. One is that Madeleine is still alive, and the second that she is sadly dead.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/26/world/europe/britain-reopens-the-madeleine-mccann-case.html

Two possibilities.
One ... Madeleine is still alive.
Second ... Madeleine is sadly dead.  To describe that as 50/50 seems fine to me ... others may have different thought processes which leads them to another conclusion ... that is entirely their prerogative.


Following from Benice's post regarding 50/50

    ////    ////    ////

11:20 : The first witness is being called by videoconference.

11:23 : It is the attorney who was in charge of the original inqury into Madeleine's disappearance, Jose Magalhaes e Menezes

    ////    ////    ////

11:39 : The decision to designate Kate and Gerry as 'arguidos' was taken after the sniffer dogs carried out their searches.

11:40 : There were several possible charges that could have been brought against the McCanns: kidnapping and selling a child were among them. s.

11:48 : The witness was asked what the probability was of Madeleine still being alive. He replied that he thought it was 50/50.
http://missingmadeleine.forumotion.net/t7174-sky-live-transcript-libel-case-complete


In my opinion a pattern is developing with spurious arguments being made using one aspect from my posts as ammunition ... if I could be bothered I would check back and prove it ... however I am aware of it and the disruption it is causing on the threads.
In future I will report anything which I think may be part of this pattern ... so now would be the time to desist.

Sorry if you object to my need for accuracy and clarity, but I do like to see the evidence for myself.

The 'Sky' transcript is headed 'Day One' and says Jose Magalhaes e Menezes's evidence took place between 11.23 and 12.39. He is followed by Tavares de Almeida whose evidence begins at 12.48.

Anne Guedes's transcripts say Tavares de Almeida appeared on Day seven and his evidence begins at 11.55.

OK, I've got it now. The Sky tweets by jondipaulo were made at the hearing in January 2010 to decide about the book ban;

10:42       jondipaolo:
The judge has stressed that this hearing is separate to the action being brought by the McCanns for £1m in damages.
    Thursday January 14, 2010 10:42 jondipaolo
 
10:44       jondipaolo:
She stresses that this trial is solely about the publication and distribution of the book and the documentary upon which it was based.
    Thursday January 14, 2010 10:44 jondipaolo
http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/Twitter_jondipaolo_12_01_2010.htm

 Anne's transcripts are from the actual trial (main action) which began on 12th September 2013.

[barrier]

A bit more reading brings this,so they are liable for the cost's in Portugal as per the supreme court judgement,applying to the ECHR does not negate that.

„ If I apply to the court, does it mean I do not have to comply with the final Judgment given by the domestic courts?

 No, applying to the Court has no suspensive effect. You must comply with the final decisions of the national courts even if you lodge an application with the Strasbourg Court.

http://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/Your_Application_ENG.pdf