McCanns appeal to the European Court of Human Rights

[G-Unit]

Well most of us here did contribute to it Robitty.

It is fairly recent so unless the short term memory is really shot up we should be able to recall vaguely what was said particularly our own contributions and responses to other contributions ... and the fact that said sayings had as forum protocol dictates provenance at time of posting.

I don't know about anyone else on the forum ... but there are occasions when I find the ploy of having to revisit groundhog day tremendously tiresome ... particularly when the subject material is recent and well discussed.

In my opinion it doesn't matter how recent or well discussed a subject is. You said;

In my opinion they have had their right to the presumption of innocence removed by the Portuguese court.  That has the potential to hinder any future work they may undertake on Madeleine's behalf.

If your first sentence is incorrect it renders your second one meaningless in my opinion.

[John]

Madeleine's parents' rights and their determination to protect them in the
European court, are inexorably linked to safeguarding her. 
Which made their application to the ECHR for the recognition of the rights wilfully abrogated by the Portuguese appeal court judges inevitable and necessary.

There are no guarantees either for Madeleine or her parents regarding the outcome of the present police investigations trying to find out what happened to her.

Her parents may well have to keep working for her on their own.

In my opinion they have had their right to the presumption of innocence removed by the Portuguese court.  That has the potential to hinder any future work they may undertake on Madeleine's behalf.

In my opinion only ... it will be worth waiting to see what the McCann legals have requested on their behalf.

This has been pointed out somewhere else in this thread but it is worth repeating as different people read different sections of the thread at different times.

In my view the Portuguese Supreme Court did not impinge the McCanns right to a presumption of innocence but merely pointed out that no evidence has ever been adduced to establish that innocence.  A subtle difference but an important one in my opinion.

[John]

Nice to see some members declaring inanely their rather obvious upset that Madeleine's parents are safeguarding her interests by taking their case to the European Court of Human Rights.

This is one so called supporter who will be content if their application is successful. 

Personally I think it is more to do with their own interests given what happened to Madeleine.

[misty]

http://www.advokat-danielsen.no/downloads/D-%20COURT_n2703477_v1_CASE_OF_A__v__NORWAY.pdf

It is well worth a read to see why the McCanns will probably be successful in the ECHR. Bear in mind that in the case the Portuguese SC used to arrive at their judgement (Fernandes e Fernandes) the person libelled was at the top of the Portuguese justice system & his working life was very much under public scrutiny - he was accountable to the public through the justice system. His right to privacy was less than the McCanns under Article 8.
 
IMO.

[John]

http://www.advokat-danielsen.no/downloads/D-%20COURT_n2703477_v1_CASE_OF_A__v__NORWAY.pdf

It is well worth a read to see why the McCanns will probably be successful in the ECHR. Bear in mind that in the case the Portuguese SC used to arrive at their judgement (Fernandes e Fernandes) the person libelled was at the top of the Portuguese justice system & his working life was very much under public scrutiny - he was accountable to the public through the justice system. His right to privacy was less than the McCanns under Article 8.
 
IMO.

The cases have nothing in common Misty, clutching at straws comes to mind.

[misty]

The cases have nothing in common Misty, clutching at straws comes to mind.

Would you care to explain why they don't have anything in common if you have read the whole judgement?

[John]

Would you care to explain why they don't have anything in common if you have read the whole judgement?

The gentleman whose case you relate was convicted of a crime, he did not seek publicity, indeed, he remains anonymous.  The McCanns have never been convicted of any crime but sought and received substantial publicity and continue to elicit it.  You cannot expect privacy when you actively seek public exposure.

[misty]

The gentleman whose case you relate was convicted of a crime, he did not seek publicity, indeed, he remains anonymous.  The McCanns have never been convicted of any crime but sought and received substantial publicity and continue to elicit it.  You cannot expect privacy when you actively seek public exposure.

You do have the right to a good name. In both cases there are false accusations & the presumption of innocence is breached by the media (not admissible under article 8 but taken into consideration by the ECHR). In both cases the lives of those libelled have been adversely affected- Kate had to give up her job & the family has endured a relentless campaign of hate against them. In 10 years, none of the accusations made in Amaral's book have been proven true or resulted in criminal charges. Public exposure was sought not for themselves but for their missing child.

[G-Unit]

http://www.advokat-danielsen.no/downloads/D-%20COURT_n2703477_v1_CASE_OF_A__v__NORWAY.pdf

It is well worth a read to see why the McCanns will probably be successful in the ECHR. Bear in mind that in the case the Portuguese SC used to arrive at their judgement (Fernandes e Fernandes) the person libelled was at the top of the Portuguese justice system & his working life was very much under public scrutiny - he was accountable to the public through the justice system. His right to privacy was less than the McCanns under Article 8.
 
IMO.

The case you have linked to appears to concern a newspaper strongly suggesting that one of the people interviewed by the police was the 'prime suspect'. They also made it possible for others to identify him.

The man wasn't a suspect, he was a witness. As a result of the newspaper article he lost his home and job and suffered hardship.

The ECHR ruled that the newspaper violated his right to respect for his private life under
Article 8.

The McCanns were suspects, not witnesses, as documented in the official files.
He described why they became suspects, using the official files as his basis.
They weren't exposed to the public by anything Amaral said, they were already firmly in the public eye.
They were unable to prove any damage to their private lives by Amaral.

[G-Unit]

You do have the right to a good name. In both cases there are false accusations & the presumption of innocence is breached by the media (not admissible under article 8 but taken into consideration by the ECHR). In both cases the lives of those libelled have been adversely affected- Kate had to give up her job & the family has endured a relentless campaign of hate against them. In 10 years, none of the accusations made in Amaral's book have been proven true or resulted in criminal charges. Public exposure was sought not for themselves but for their missing child.

The accusations against the McCanns are documented in the official files from the investigation. They weren't invented by a newspaper or by Amaral.

I have never seen it said before that Kate McCann had to give up her job due to Amaral's book. She resigned, I believe, in February 2008, five months before his book was published.
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/kate-quits-as-gp-to-work-for-kids-1649946

There is no proven connection between Amaral's book and any so-called 'campaign of hate'.

A person is still a public figure regardless of their reasons for being one.

[misty]

The case you have linked to appears to concern a newspaper strongly suggesting that one of the people interviewed by the police was the 'prime suspect'. They also made it possible for others to identify him.

The man wasn't a suspect, he was a witness. As a result of the newspaper article he lost his home and job and suffered hardship.

The ECHR ruled that the newspaper violated his right to respect for his private life under
Article 8.

The McCanns were suspects, not witnesses, as documented in the official files.
He described why they became suspects, using the official files as his basis.
They weren't exposed to the public by anything Amaral said, they were already firmly in the public eye.
They were unable to prove any damage to their private lives by Amaral.

The McCanns became suspects as a result of a procedural decision made by the very person who later reported on it in the form of a book. The basis of that decision could never be questioned by the McCanns as no criminal charges were ever forthcoming.
They were as innocent in the process (presumption of innocence) as the witness who was accused by a "journalist" of being the prime suspect in another case. The difference is, in the McCann case the "journalist" was the active accuser with direct knowledge of their personal lives whereas the Norwegian newspaper were stating their opinion as a third party which had acquired information from the police.

[John]

The McCanns became suspects as a result of a procedural decision made by the very person who later reported on it in the form of a book. The basis of that decision could never be questioned by the McCanns as no criminal charges were ever forthcoming.
They were as innocent in the process (presumption of innocence) as the witness who was accused by a "journalist" of being the prime suspect in another case. The difference is, in the McCann case the "journalist" was the active accuser with direct knowledge of their personal lives whereas the Norwegian newspaper were stating their opinion as a third party which had acquired information from the police.

That is wrong on so many levels misty.  The McCanns became suspects because of evidence and other material gathered by numerous police officers.  That evidence was placed before the prosecutor and he decided based on that evidence to bring the parents in for formal interview and to designate them as arguidos or formal suspects/persons of interest to the investigation.  Amaral was merely a cog in that process, to suggest otherwise and in particular to infer that it was his decision alone is severely flawed.

For better or for worse, Amaral has become the defacto face of the prosecution in the McCann case. He was the Coordinator, the lead detective in the case, he fulfilled his responsibilities to the best of his ability imo.  It was his job to report the facts of the case upward to his superiors, he did not have authority beyond his station.

[G-Unit]

The McCanns became suspects as a result of a procedural decision made by the very person who later reported on it in the form of a book. The basis of that decision could never be questioned by the McCanns as no criminal charges were ever forthcoming.
They were as innocent in the process (presumption of innocence) as the witness who was accused by a "journalist" of being the prime suspect in another case. The difference is, in the McCann case the "journalist" was the active accuser with direct knowledge of their personal lives whereas the Norwegian newspaper were stating their opinion as a third party which had acquired information from the police.

Amaral was third in the hierarchy of those in charge of the investigation. On what grounds are you suggesting that he alone was responsible for making procedural decisions?

There were other options available to the McCanns, such as objecting to the archiving of the case.

Amaral's accusations matched the investigation's accusations. The Norwegian newspaper's accusations didn't.

[misty]

That is wrong on so many levels misty.  The McCanns became suspects because of evidence and other material gathered by numerous police officers.  That evidence was placed before the prosecutor and he decided based on that evidence to bring the parents in for formal interview and to designate them as arguidos or formal suspects/persons of interest to the investigation.  Amaral was merely a cog in that process, to suggest otherwise and in particular to infer that it was his decision alone is severely flawed.

For better or for worse, Amaral has become the defacto face of the prosecution in the McCann case. He was the Coordinator, the lead detective in the case, he fulfilled his responsibilities to the best of his ability imo.  It was his job to report the facts of the case upward to his superiors, he did not have authority beyond his station.

In order to disprove what I have stated, would you or someone please link to the evidence which was sent to the PP prior to the McCanns being made arguidos?
Tavares de Almeida's interim report, addressed to the Co-ordinator of the Investigaion, is dated 11th September. A previous report dated 3rd September merely requested further a rogatory letter for additional investigative work considered necessary in the UK.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/TAVARES_ALMEIDA.htm

[misty]

The accusations against the McCanns are documented in the official files from the investigation. They weren't invented by a newspaper or by Amaral.

I have never seen it said before that Kate McCann had to give up her job due to Amaral's book. She resigned, I believe, in February 2008, five months before his book was published.
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/kate-quits-as-gp-to-work-for-kids-1649946

There is no proven connection between Amaral's book and any so-called 'campaign of hate'.

A person is still a public figure regardless of their reasons for being one.

I will answer this post when I have had chance to assemble all the relevant information.