McCanns appeal to the European Court of Human Rights

[Robittybob1]

Madeleine's claim was rejected in the first judgement because they were unable to prove that the book etc.harmed the search for her. In my opinion any court fees and other costs after that ceased to be payable by The Fund. The case was then only about the McCanns suing Amaral for defaming them. Difficult to justify spending Fund money on that.

If the money was going to go into the fund if they won, I think it fair enough the fund pay in the case they lost.

[Venturi Swirl]

An interesting point from the proven facts;

21. The criminal inquiry was reopened due to the appearance of new evidence?

        Not proved.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=5931.0

As the only basis for re-opening the investigation was the appearance of new evidence is the Portuguese court questioning the legality of the criminal inquiry?

[G-Unit]

what other books?

if amaral has evidence thta proves anything it should be presented in court....none of his so called evidence stands up to scrutiny IMO

I think we've moved beyond what Amaral wrote. He used the same evidence that the investigation used to make the McCanns arguidos. The evidence wasn't sufficient to take to court, but, like the McCanns he formed an opinion. The question to be answered was whether he should be allowed to express his opinion just as they had expressed theirs.

[G-Unit]

If the money was going to go into the fund if they won, I think it fair enough the fund pay in the case they lost.

If I offered to hand my winnings to the Fund should it pay for me to sue someone?

[Robittybob1]

If I offered to hand my winnings to the Fund should it pay for me to sue someone?

Maybe if the winning and losing were related.

[Venturi Swirl]

I think we've moved beyond what Amaral wrote. He used the same evidence that the investigation used to make the McCanns arguidos. The evidence wasn't sufficient to take to court, but, like the McCanns he formed an opinion. The question to be answered was whether he should be allowed to express his opinion just as they had expressed theirs.

It would be like an ex-copper in this country writing a book about X being a paedophile and being allowed to profit from a best sellng book about it because he was on the original investigation but booted off before it concluded that there was no credible evidence against the suspect, simply to give him his right to express an opinion.

[kizzy]

What other books?  What truth?

 .try looking at R D Hall contribution to the case.

Was he ever sued - you could say what he has put out there is worse than G A imo

[Mr Gray]

I think we've moved beyond what Amaral wrote. He used the same evidence that the investigation used to make the McCanns arguidos. The evidence wasn't sufficient to take to court, but, like the McCanns he formed an opinion. The question to be answered was whether he should be allowed to express his opinion just as they had expressed theirs.

Their opinion was not defamatory

[barrier]

It would be like an ex-copper in this country writing a book about X being a paedophile and being allowed to profit from a best sellng book about it because he was on the original investigation but booted off before it concluded that there was no credible evidence against the suspect, simply to give him his right to express an opinion.

This is where imo the argument is,the Portuguses laws (libel/damages) rightly or wrongly appear to  to be  at odds with the uk's,the Mccanns are hoping that  ECHR will side with their (uk) side of the argument.
Given the book was written and published in Portugal under Portuguese laws upheld by the SC,who is the ECHR more likely to side with?

[Mr Gray]

This is where imo the argument is,the Portuguses laws (libel/damages) rightly or wrongly appear to  to be  at odds with the uk's,the Mccanns are hoping that  ECHR will side with their (uk) side of the argument.
Given the book was written and published in Portugal under Portuguese laws upheld by the SC,who is the ECHR more likely to side with?

The ECHR won't side with anyone... They will simply apply their own laws... Irrespective of what Portugal law, dictates

[G-Unit]

Their opinion was not defamatory

Neither was Amaral's.

[Mr Gray]

Neither was Amaral's.

That has yet to be decided... And that's, the whole point
Until all litigation is, exhausted  we, don't know for sure

[Carana]

Why didn't they think this with other books that had been written.

Or could it be GA - was involved from day one.... in what they call the golden hours.

G A has always been there main target - because he was to near the truth imo

The fact that, as the initial coordinator of the investigation, whatever he said might have added weight on the credibility scale than Joe Blogs for the average reader might have something to do with it.

[G-Unit]

As the only basis for re-opening the investigation was the appearance of new evidence is the Portuguese court questioning the legality of the criminal inquiry?

It wasn't possible to prove that the investigation was reopened because new evidence appeared. Possibly because the details weren't released. The matter of new evidence was raised again by the McCann's lawyers in the request for an annulment of the SC judgement.

However, inside the factual matter established as proved in the minutes, there is no fact capable of constituting ground for the review or reopening of the investigation in question,
http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/Annulment_request.htm

They seem to be saying that there was nothing to justify the review or the reopening within the existing evidence. The PJ review began, unannounced, in March 2011; before Operation Grange began.

With that objective, the National Director of the Judiciary Police, in March 2011, assigned to a team of investigators from the North Directorate a task to re-examine the whole wide range of information contained in the inquest, with the aim to identify information whose further understanding could be revealed useful and possible.

That reanalysis task, which took place during the last two and a half years, helped identify new evidence, which by imposing further investigation, meet the requirements set by article 279º no 1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for the reopening of the investigation.
http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/Nigel/id466.htm

That sounds like the review wasn't preceded by the discovery of new evidence to me, it sounds like a fishing expedition to me. Cases archived under 277/1 could only be reviewed or reopened if brand new evidence appeared which was not in the investigator's possession at the time of archiving.

[G-Unit]

That has yet to be decided... And that's, the whole point
Until all litigation is, exhausted  we, don't know for sure

All litigation has been exhausted.