McCanns appeal to the European Court of Human Rights

[G-Unit]

I am beginning to wonder if either of you should be allowed out on your own.  Let alone let loose on The Internet.

How rude!

[Eleanor]

How rude!

Not very original, is it.

[G-Unit]

Not very original, is it.

Originality is in short supply here imo.

[Eleanor]

Originality is in short supply here imo.

You would know more about that than I would.

[Mr Gray]

His thesis wasn't based on figments of his imagination, it was based on facts which were recorded in the investigation files.

The points in the files Amaral based his thesis on were not facts...Youve defined a fact as a statement of truth. You are contradicting yourself

[G-Unit]

The points in the files Amaral based his thesis on were not facts...Youve defined a fact as a statement of truth. You are contradicting yourself

You said the McCanns would win their case at the ECHR.

[Mr Gray]

You said the McCanns would win their case at the ECHR.

And I've explained why they didn't..you've done nothing but try to goad and insult....and failed on both

[G-Unit]

And I've explained why they didn't..you've done nothing but try to goad and insult....and failed on both

Maybe you should forget making predictions in future then.

[Mr Gray]

Maybe you should forget making predictions in future then.

I worked out exactly why the mcCanns lost and why the evidence was not properly examined....and it was nothing to do with the fact that it was a civil not a criminal trial as you claimed. it was because it wasnt initially  a libel trial.
If it had been a libel trial the evidence would have been examined in the first trial and the mccanns would have won.

it took some working out and Im the only one whos managed to do it.

[G-Unit]

I worked out exactly why the mcCanns lost and why the evidence was not properly examined....and it was nothing to do with the fact that it was a civil not a criminal trial as you claimed. it was because it wasnt initially  a libel trial.
If it had been a libel trial the evidence would have been examined in the first trial and the mccanns would have won.

it took some working out and Im the only one whos managed to do it.

You should stop kidding yourself. A civil trial couldn't make decisions about the evidence gathered in a criminal investigation.

[Mr Gray]

You should stop kidding yourself. A civil trial couldn't make decisions about the evidence gathered in a criminal investigation.

then explain how the dogs alert became  a proven fact in a civil trial....when the evidence was gathered in a criminal investigation.
Then expalin how OJ simpson was ruled guilty in a civil trial on evidence gathered in a criminal trial ..

you havent got a gram of understanding of the principles involved...your lack of understanding is laughable...proved on that point alone

[G-Unit]

then explain how the dogs alert became  a proven fact in a civil trial....when the evidence was gathered in a criminal investigation.
Then expalin how OJ simpson was ruled guilty in a civil trial on evidence gathered in a criminal trial ..

you havent got a gram of understanding of the principles involved...your lack of understanding is laughable...proved on that point alone

Because the court was checking Amaral's claim that he used the information in the files of the criminal investigation in his book.

You can't compare American and Portuguese legal systems, as one is basically a common law system and the other is a civil law system.

It is your understanding which is laughable.

[Mr Gray]

Because the court was checking Amaral's claim that he used the information in the files of the criminal investigation in his book.

You can't compare American and Portuguese legal systems, as one is basically a common law system and the other is a civil law system.

It is your understanding which is laughable.

You followed in the footsteps of Carana who is also wrong. Civil trials look at facts gathered in criminal investigations..you'd have to be a complete idiot not to understand that....and you don't.

[G-Unit]

You followed in the footsteps of Carana who is also wrong. Civil trials look at facts gathered in criminal investigations..you'd have to be a complete idiot not to understand that....and you don't.

You are getting sidetracked by a case in America which was under a different legal system, and dealng with facts which had been established in a criminal trial. As the judge observed, the only fact established was that Madeleine had disappeared.

[Mr Gray]

You are getting sidetracked by a case in America which was under a different legal system, and dealng with facts which had been established in a criminal trial. As the judge observed, the only fact established was that Madeleine had disappeared.

You still think you're right which is laughable
If what you think is correct...
How can the dog alerts ...part of the criminal investigation,,....be a proven fact in a civil case..

You're tying yourself in knots l o l


Any civil case can use facts from a criminal investigation....