McCanns appeal to the European Court of Human Rights

[Mr Gray]

I disagree davel because this entire case is about Madeleine and what happened to her.

This application is nothing to do with maddie...I suspect one of the points will be defamation...and as eleanor pointed out...presumption of innocence

[stephen25000]

because it would not be relevant  to this particular issue

Really.

Perhaps you can provide a cite for that.

[Mr Gray]

Why, because that wouldn't be convenient?

If you read the SC judgement one point they made clearly was that they were not there to judge the culpability or otherwise of the mccanns

[stephen25000]

This application is nothing to do with maddie...I suspect one of the points will be defamation...and as eleanor pointed out...presumption of innocence

The case is not against Amaral.

The Mccanns put themselves in the public eye, along with their private life.

[Mr Gray]

Really.

Perhaps you can provide a cite for that.

see my post above re the SC judgement

[Mr Gray]

The case is mot against Amaral.

The Mccanns put themselves in the public eye, along with their private life.

I didnt mention amaral...its whether the SC got the judgement re defamation correct........

[stephen25000]

see my post above re the SC judgement

Irrelevant.

That case is done and dusted.

Nothing to do with Amaral any more.

[stephen25000]

I didnt mention amaral...its whether the SC got the judgement re defamation correct........

The Mccanns placed themselves in the public eye.

Their actions are to blame, not Amaral and not Portugal.

[Mr Gray]

The Mccanns placed thenselves in the public eye.

Their actions are to blame, not Amaral and not Portugal.

Its nothing to do with being in the public eye...what makes you think it is

[Mr Gray]

For those who perhaps havent read the SC judgement .....nb.....

At the centre of this trial, there is a conflict between two existing rights, the right to good name and reputation of the claimants (through the presumption of innocence that they always were entitled to) and the right to freedom of expression of the defendant, in the concrete field of the right to opinion he is entitled to.

That sums up everything I have said...thats what the ECHR appeal will be concerned with...not that the mccanns were wrong to leave maddie..imo

[slartibartfast]

And these children have a right to be deemed alive when there is no evidence to the contrary.

There is no evidence for believing that Madeleine is dead.  And certainly no proof.

Families also have a right for missing relatives to be considered dead, without proof.

[Mr Gray]

Families also have a right for missing relatives to be considered dead, without proof.

considered dead for legal purposes is not the same as beleiving someone is dead

[G-Unit]

Yes...the court claiming the mccanns hadnt proved their innocence....that could well be another point

That statement is not correct. The Supreme Court judges clearly stated it wasn't something they should or would consider;

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. Page 69
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=7937.15

[Angelo222]

Yes...the court claiming the mccanns hadnt proved their innocence....that could well be another point

You conveniently forgot to mention that it was the McCanns themselves who started this narrative when they claimed they had been cleared.  The Supreme Court was right to correct them in the way they did because they have never been cleared.  In fact their involvement post 3rd May 2007 has still to be properly investigated imo.

[Mr Gray]

That statement is not correct. The Supreme Court judges clearly stated it wasn't something they should or would consider;

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. Page 69
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=7937.15

Im glad you pointed that out...angelo seems to think the SC have questioned their innocence. The SC did say theat the presumption of innocence was linked to the right toa good name