McCanns appeal to the European Court of Human Rights

[Brietta]

In this post I haven't claimed they will win I've simply provided proof that the POI applies and that gunit is wrong

Precisely: whatever the outcome of the case Kate and Gerry McCann are without a doubt entitled to the presumption of innocence.  In my opinion the Portuguese Appeal Court judgement specifically denies that to them.

[jassi]

Precisely: whatever the outcome of the case Kate and Gerry McCann are without a doubt entitled to the presumption of innocence.  In my opinion the Portuguese Appeal Court judgement specifically denies that to them.

Oh the irony, especially in the context of your previous post.   
You clearly haven't got over the SC decision

[Brietta]

Oh the irony, especially in the context of your previous post.   
You clearly haven't got over the SC decision

With reference to John's post ... please keep comments general and do not personalise them; I've noted you tend to do this quite often with my posts and others.

[G-Unit]

Defamation is a criminal offence in Portugal is it not?

It can be either. The McCann case was a civil case.

[Venturi Swirl]

It can be either. The McCann case was a civil case.

That is not my understanding.

[jassi]

That is not my understanding.

What is your understanding ?

[Venturi Swirl]

What is your understanding ?

That defamation is a criminal offence in Portugal, however damages to reputation can be claimed under civil law.

[G-Unit]

I think sceptics tend to get themselves trapped in a groundhog time warp.

The civil case is over.
Everyone else has moved on to whatever the opinion and judgement of the European Court will be; in my opinion therefore making the past deliberations of the Portuguese judges an historic irrelevance as far as discussion is concerned.

Any evidence that Portugal denied the McCanns their human rights must be taken from the accounts of the proceedings in the Portuguese courts, so those accounts are very relevant.

[G-Unit]

Another interesting point is that from what I can see the players were never charged with any offence....but the ECHR still ruled they were entitled to the presumption of innocence

A very different case because Amaral described a criminal investigation up to 10th September which culminated in the McCanns being made arguidos. Then he gave his opinion about the facts he described, which is not an offence.

[Mr Gray]

A very different case because Amaral described a criminal investigation up to 10th September which culminated in the McCanns being made arguidos. Then he gave his opinion about the facts he described, which is not an offence.

Amaral did more than give opinion. He said he could prove things.
When was the documentary aired... He was still saying it then

[G-Unit]

Amaral did more than give opinion. He said he could prove things.
When was the documentary aired... He was still saying it then

Well the SC judges disagreed with you.

[Mr Gray]

Well the SC judges disagreed with you.

I'm actually stating facts

[Robittybob1]

Amaral did more than give opinion. He said he could prove things.
When was the documentary aired... He was still saying it then

Was that "could prove"  dependant on Amaral staying in the role?  Once they took him off the job his ability to "prove" a case against the McCanns dropped to zero.

He isn't actually saying he "has the proof", for if he had the proof it wouldn't be libel.

[Mr Gray]

Was that "could prove"  dependant on Amaral staying in the role?  Once they took him off the job his ability to "prove" a case against the McCanns dropped to zero.

He isn't actually saying he "has the proof", for if he had the proof it wouldn't be libel.

He is actually  saying he has the proof

It's been posted many times..


I the documentary he said... In the next 50 mins I will prove ....that's pretty clear ..

So he is, saying he has the proof.. He is saying he will state it in the documentary... But the evidence he stated didn't prove anything

[Robittybob1]

He is actually  saying he has the proof

It's been posted many times..


I the documentary he said... In the next 50 mins I will prove ....that's pretty clear ..

So he is, saying he has the proof.. He is saying he will state it in the documentary... But the evidence he stated didn't prove anything

Well doesn't he also blame that on poor translation?  He is speaking in Portuguese and we are reading it in English.  You'd have to ask whether the meaning came across properly.
Surely he wouldn't say "I will prove" if he didn't actually have the proof.