McCanns appeal to the European Court of Human Rights

[G-Unit]

Can anyone prove the dog alerted to something other than cadaver odour? Unconfirmed doesn't mean untrue.

[Mr Gray]

Can anyone prove the dog alerted to something other than cadaver odour? Unconfirmed doesn't mean untrue.

That really is a pathetic response.,...
To claim the alert is confirmed is a lie...simple. it may or may not be an alert to cadaver...but it is not confirmed,..
It's a lie to claim it is

[G-Unit]

That really is a pathetic response.,...
To claim the alert is confirmed is a lie...simple. it may or may not be an alert to cadaver...but it is not confirmed,..
It's a lie to claim it is

Who claimed the alert was confirmed?

[Mr Gray]

Who claimed the alert was confirmed?

You really are deluded if you ask that question

[Venturi Swirl]

Who claimed the alert was confirmed?

Have you read the interim report?

How about this - is this a factual statement?

“There is a coincidence between the markings of cadaver odour and blood [by the two dogs], according to the (partial) Laboratory Report that has been annexed to the files.

The said marking occurred behind the living room sofa (cadaver odour/blood/DNA), which unarguably proves that said piece of furniture was pushed back by someone, after the death of Madeleine McCann was confirmed”.

Unarguably proves?

Well that’s that then isn’t it?  it’s a fact that the sofa was moved after Madeleine died in the apartment.  No debate.

Jesus H.

[Mr Gray]

According to gunits way of thing my belief in CBs guilt is based on facts

[Wonderfulspam]

According to gunits way of thing my belief I VBs guilt is based on facts

It's a fact that Wolters says he has concrete evidence. His alerts are unconfirmed however. But it shouldn't be much longer now.

[G-Unit]

Who claimed that the dog alerts were confirmed?

[Venturi Swirl]

Who claimed that the dog alerts were confirmed?

Have you read the interim report?

How about this - is this a factual statement?

“There is a coincidence between the markings of cadaver odour and blood [by the two dogs], according to the (partial) Laboratory Report that has been annexed to the files.

The said marking occurred behind the living room sofa (cadaver odour/blood/DNA), which unarguably proves that said piece of furniture was pushed back by someone, after the death of Madeleine McCann was confirmed”.

Unarguably proves?

Well that’s that then isn’t it?  it’s a fact that the sofa was moved after Madeleine died in the apartment.  No debate.

Jesus H.

[Carana]

As I don't have the courage to wade through over 300 pages of comments, I don't know whether the judgment has already been published here. Apologies if so.

It can be downlowded here:

https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/fre?i=003-7438419-10185805

A briefer summary (information notes):
https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=002-13798

[Carana]

I'm interested in how the verdict was arrived at you obviously haven't followed my  posts.
The ECHR could reach no other conclusion.
The question you haven't and can't answer is why the Portuguese regard facts as proven that are neither facts nor proven.
All my reasoning on how the decision would be reached was absolutely spot on

I think the issue over "proven facts" is that it was not a criminal trial but a civil one. When the judge wouldn't allow Gerry to show his documentation or whatever it was to show that cadaver dogs can be unreliable, it was because all that was being assessed is whether what Amaral asserted re the dogs was effectively in the case files (as opposed to him having invented it off his own bat). The issue wasn't whether Eddie had correctly reacted to cadaver odour or not. If it had been a criminal trial, presumably Gerry's counter-evidence could have been presented and perhaps then the conclusion might have been that cadaver odour wasn't a proven fact.

[Venturi Swirl]

I think the issue over "proven facts" is that it was not a criminal trial but a civil one. When the judge wouldn't allow Gerry to show his documentation or whatever it was to show that cadaver dogs can be unreliable, it was because all that was being assessed is whether what Amaral asserted re the dogs was effectively in the case files (as opposed to him having invented it off his own bat). The issue wasn't whether Eddie had correctly reacted to cadaver odour or not. If it had been a criminal trial, presumably Gerry's counter-evidence could have been presented and perhaps then the conclusion might have been that cadaver odour wasn't a proven fact.

Yes, that's my understanding too - the proven fact is that the Interim report claimed Madeleine died in the apartment, that the sofa was moved and her blood was found behind it.  The fact that these claims were all completely unverified and unsupported by any evidence was not apparently of any interest to the ECHR.  Strange but true!

[G-Unit]

I think the issue over "proven facts" is that it was not a criminal trial but a civil one. When the judge wouldn't allow Gerry to show his documentation or whatever it was to show that cadaver dogs can be unreliable, it was because all that was being assessed is whether what Amaral asserted re the dogs was effectively in the case files (as opposed to him having invented it off his own bat). The issue wasn't whether Eddie had correctly reacted to cadaver odour or not. If it had been a criminal trial, presumably Gerry's counter-evidence could have been presented and perhaps then the conclusion might have been that cadaver odour wasn't a proven fact.

I agree completely Carana. The point was simply to decide if Amaral's thesis was based on information in the files, not whether the information was true or false. The judge of the first instant was quite clear;

Judge – To decide that there are already forensic experts. We are not here to prove if the contents of the book are truthful or not. Here we are only trying to establish if the freedom of expression of the defendants has affected the rights of the claimants. This court cannot be a substitute of the criminal investigation.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=4746.0

[Carana]

Yes, that's my understanding too - the proven fact is that the Interim report claimed Madeleine died in the apartment, that the sofa was moved and her blood was found behind it.  The fact that these claims were all completely unverified and unsupported by any evidence was not apparently of any interest to the ECHR.  Strange but true!

AFAIK, the ECtHR was never going to examine the nitty-gritty of the case, just whether the "national authorities" had violated or ignored applicable rights, or ignored EU case precedence in their rulings. I presume that they base their rulings on the arguments presented to them.

Seemingly, the PJ doesn't appear to be a national authority. Amaral's book had come out 3 days after the public prosecutor's ruling.

[Carana]

ECtHR: "The Court considered that, even assuming that the applicants’ reputation had been damaged, this was not on account of the argument put forward by the book’s author but rather as a result of the suspicions expressed against them, which had led to their being placed under investigation in the course of the criminal investigation (the prosecutor’s office decided to take no further action in July 2008) and had led to intense media attention and much controversy. The information had thus been brought to the public’s attention in some detail even before the investigation file was made available to the media and the book in question was published. It followed that the national authorities had not failed in their positive obligation to protect the applicants’ right to respect for their private life."

And a lot of that negative speculation was fuelled by PJ leaks (some true, some misleading and others wildly inaccurate), and an overly cosy "scratch my back and I'll scratch yours" PT tabloid / PJ relationship.