McCanns appeal to the European Court of Human Rights

[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!

My impression was (and still is) that that "interim report" read as if it was invented and written on the back of a beer mat late at night in a Portimão bar. Whether that was the case or not, it was nonetheless an official document as far as the civil case was concerned.

[Carana]

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

It's not often that we agree. ;)

[G-Unit]

It's not often that we agree. ;)

We have different opinions, but a similar approach in our understanding of text imo.

[Carana]

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

A point, though, is that people in some quarters still choose to harp on that the fact that the judges ruled that cadaver odour was therefore a "proven fact", merrily disregarding the fact that all it meant was that reports to that effect were in the files, which was all the judge in the civil case needed to ascertain.

[Carana]

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.

If a criminal case had been brought to court, it would have been shot down. Even the GNR stated that they had moved furniture to make sure that she wasn't simply hiding somewhere. That, too, is in the files.

[Venturi Swirl]

If a criminal case had been brought to court, it would have been shot down. Even the GNR stated that they had moved furniture to make sure that she wasn't simply hiding somewhere. That, too, is in the files.

It's an unjust world IMO where an ex-cop can legally base his damning, accusatory book on an unsubstantiated reading of the evidence which results in the parents of a missing child being falsely accused of all sorts of heinous acts.   

[Carana]

It's an unjust world IMO where an ex-cop can legally base his damning, accusatory book on an unsubstantiated reading of the evidence which results in the parents of a missing child being falsely accused of all sorts of heinous acts.

I watched (most of) the Leveson enquiry at the time. Re the McCann episode, all (?) the journos stated that the leaks came from the PT police. Although not specified, few could logically have come from the GNR as they weren't privy to the investigation files, AFAIK, and therefore I presume that "police" meant the PJ.

The McCanns could never have nailed specific individuals in the PJ as the source of the leaks... how? The PT tabloid / PJ blitz against them that started as soon as they became arguidos was relentless. By the time Amaral's book came out, he was a "private citizen", but the vast quantity of leaks meant that the arguably most damaging ones  about the McCanns had started before his publication. Nothing to do with me, mate.

[Mr Gray]

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.

The point im making is how do the confirmed dog alerts appear in the proven facts in the first place....just as the proven facts in the cipriano case  included Jaonnas blood being confirmed in the fridge when it wasnt....and this WAS a criminal trial.

Why does the portuguese court accept things that are not proven....nor facts to be listed in court documents as proven facts.  Do you know any other country with such bizarre standards.

[Carana]

The point im making is how do the confirmed dog alerts appear in the proven facts in the first place....just as the proven facts in the cipriano case  included Jaonnas blood being confirmed in the fridge when it wasnt....and this WAS a criminal trial.

Why does the portuguese court accept things that are not proven....nor facts to be listed in court documents as proven facts.  Do you know any other country with such bizarre standards.

The Cipriano case was a CRIMINAL one.... sadly with no real defense. A state-appointed (?) defense lawyer who had (wrongly) assumed that the case would be thrown out and either because there was no money or because there was little time, no countering evidence had been gathered to disprove the so-called facts. The whole thing was a shambles, IMO. Public opinion had been already whipped into a frenzy and - in some video clips - appeared ready to lynch the Ciprianos. Three guesses whom by.

The McCann case was a CIVIL trial. Totally different.

[Eleanor]

The point im making is how do the confirmed dog alerts appear in the proven facts in the first place....just as the proven facts in the cipriano case  included Jaonnas blood being confirmed in the fridge when it wasnt....and this WAS a criminal trial.

Why does the portuguese court accept things that are not proven....nor facts to be listed in court documents as proven facts.  Do you know any other country with such bizarre standards.

At the time things were marginally better than during the dark ages of Salazar.  Portugal probably thought that it was doing okay.  Sadly, Salazar still lurked in The Judicial System.  Amaeal being one such.

[Eleanor]

The Cipriano case was a CRIMINAL one.... sadly with no real defense. A state-appointed (?) defense lawyer who had (wrongly) assumed that the case would be thrown out and either because there was no money or because there was little time, no countering evidence had been gathered to disprove the so-called facts. The whole thing was a shambles, IMO. Public opinion had been already whipped into a frenzy and - in some video clips - appeared ready to lynch the Ciprianos. Three guesses whom by.

The McCann case was a CIVIL trial. Totally different.

Am I wrong in thinking that Leonor Cipriano's Lawyer was a friend of Amaral?

[Carana]

Am I wrong in thinking that Leonor Cipriano's Lawyer was a friend of Amaral?

From memory, there were several. One eventually offered him a place as a trainee, but I don't recall that panning out. One (same?) appeared shocked at being sidelined by the court allowing João's "confession" tape as "evidence".

[Eleanor]

From memory, there were several. One eventually offered him a place as a trainee, but I don't recall that panning out. One (same?) appeared shocked at being sidelined by the court allowing João's "confession" tape as "evidence".

What about the one who got caught taking drugs into a prison?  He said they were planted on him and everyone believed him, of course.

[Carana]

What about the one who got caught taking drugs into a prison?  He said they were planted on him and everyone believed him, of course.

I never quite understood that story.

[Mr Gray]

A point, though, is that people in some quarters still choose to harp on that the fact that the judges ruled that cadaver odour was therefore a "proven fact", merrily disregarding the fact that all it meant was that reports to that effect were in the files, which was all the judge in the civil case needed to ascertain.

Thats your opinion and youve not provided anything to support it. The ECHR ruling says the book had a factual basis. In the guidelines about how the court decides on the balance between articles 8 and 10 the ECHR says it looks at the veracity of the claim. Are you aware that the ECHR do not question the facts,....they would assume the proven facts are in fact proven. in truth Amaarls claims are based on lies...not facts.