You hope..............but it may well not be.
As it is the book isn't liable or it would have been banned...say his climes will stay....either way.
you really need to listen to someone who knows what they are talking about..thats me. i probably know more about the court and ECHR case than anyone else on any forum...including poulton...brown...the P resident......eevry one of them.
first the SC did not rule on whether the book was libellous....and the SC did noy say the mcCanns havent been proved innocece...yhey simply gave their opinion on the balance of rights re article 8 and 10....and they got it wrong and i can tell you why.
this case is all about amaral rights under articla 10 and the McCanns rights under article 8.
If you look at how the ECHR decide one of the major points is the veraciity of the claims ...in this case those made by amaral
The portuguese court made a mistake...even the court of the first instance...they said they were not there to consider the veracity of amarals claims..they would not let Gerry present his arguments re the dogs which would have shown amarals claims were not based on facts.....but on lies...thats contrary to the ECHRs stance...major error by portugal.
the mcCanns have quoted Springer vs Germnay where the ECHR ruked in favour of free speech...peter mac...who must be a bit thick on the CMOMM site says he cant understand why the Mcs have cited a case where Free speech was ruled more important....i understand...it sbecause the claims were true and proved in court.
so the ECHR will look at the evidence and see whether amaral was right to pronounce the mccanns guilty...the dogs etc...they will look at that and may even give their opinions on them. the archiving despatch said none of the evidence used to make the mccans guilty was confirmed..its in the files. so amaral is nmaking claims with no evidence to support them.
Based on all this I cannot see any way the ECHR will not find in the McCanns favour
