McCanns appeal to the European Court of Human Rights

[G-Unit]

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....

It's clear we'll never agree so I don't know why you wish to continue this debate. The McCanns and their lawyers tried with all their might to prove their case and they failed. They seem to have accepted that and you should do the same imo.

[Mr Gray]

It's clear we'll never agree so I don't know why you wish to continue this debate. The McCanns and their lawyers tried with all their might to prove their case and they failed. They seem to have accepted that and you should do the same imo.

It's not a matter of agreeing ..you're totally wrong and don't understand the legal principles involved.
The McCanns didn't fail ...their lawyers did but you still don't understand why.
What do you imagine I don't accept..it's you who doesn't accept you're wrong
I've explained why the alerts were not proven facts in the first trial but you still don't understand

[G-Unit]

It's not a matter of agreeing ..you're totally wrong and don't understand the legal principles involved.
The McCanns didn't fail ...their lawyers did but you still don't understand why.
What do you imagine I don't accept..it's you who doesn't accept you're wrong
I've explained why the alerts were not proven facts in the first trial but you still don't understand

You think I don't understand and I think you don't understand. Neither of us will ever convince the other, so I see no point in further discussion. In my opinion your ego has been wounded and that's what's driving you to continue to flog this dead horse.

You blame the McCann's lawyers, but you should remember that the one who pays the piper calls the tune. The writing was on the wall as early as October 2010 when the injunction against Amaral's book and documentary was overturned by the Appeal Court because they neither damaged the investigation by her parents into Madeleine's disappearance nor did they affect the couple's human rights. (madeleine page 363)

[Mr Gray]

You think I don't understand and I think you don't understand. Neither of us will ever convince the other, so I see no point in further discussion. In my opinion your ego has been wounded and that's what's driving you to continue to flog this dead horse.

You blame the McCann's lawyers, but you should remember that the one who pays the piper calls the tune. The writing was on the wall as early as October 2010 when the injunction against Amaral's book and documentary was overturned by the Appeal Court because they neither damaged the investigation by her parents into Madeleine's disappearance nor did they affect the couple's human rights. (madeleine page 363)

I know you don't understand ...you think you do. You don't even make any sense. Your claim that facts from a criminal trial can't be used  in a civil trial is preposterous and proven wrong. It's you who is wounded because you've been shown to be ignorant of the true facts. I see Carana seems to accept her mistake ..you can't..

[Mr Gray]

You think I don't understand and I think you don't understand. Neither of us will ever convince the other, so I see no point in further discussion. In my opinion your ego has been wounded and that's what's driving you to continue to flog this dead horse.

You blame the McCann's lawyers, but you should remember that the one who pays the piper calls the tune. The writing was on the wall as early as October 2010 when the injunction against Amaral's book and documentary was overturned by the Appeal Court because they neither damaged the investigation by her parents into Madeleine's disappearance nor did they affect the couple's human rights. (madeleine page 363)

Can you show where the Mccanns sued Amaral for libel...thats the important point.
if they had sued him for libel the facts would have been examined and the dog alerts discredited. they sued for damages based on his Duty of Reserve.....thats why the judge said the facts were not important.  ive expalined it all a couple of days ago. I dont see any poster here or elsewhere understanding this point. You yourself said afew days ago it was  a libel trial.

do yyou understand now how amaral got away with libel...i dont think you do

[Eleanor]

Can you show where the Mccanns sued Amaral for libel...thats the important point.
if they had sued him for libel the facts would have been examined and the dog alerts discredited. they sued for damages based on his Duty of Reserve.....thats why the judge said the facts were not important.  ive expalined it all a couple of days ago. I dont see any poster here or elsewhere understanding this point. You yourself said afew days ago it was  a libel trial.

do yyou understand now how amaral got away with libel...i dont think you do

Please try not to think that we are all unable to understand.  Although I agree that Gunit isn't able.  Or probably doesn't want to, which might be more to the point.

[barrier]

It's not a matter of agreeing ..you're totally wrong and don't understand the legal principles involved.
The McCanns didn't fail ...their lawyers did but you still don't understand why.
What do you imagine I don't accept..it's you who doesn't accept you're wrong
I've explained why the alerts were not proven facts in the first trial but you still don't understand

You argue the lawyers failed, how could they argue against the first judgement which was in their favour which contained the statement of fact concerning the dogs, should they not of accepted the judgement ?
At which point did the lawyers fail ?

[Mr Gray]

You argue the lawyers failed, how could they argue against the first judgement which was in their favour which contained the statement of fact concerning the dogs, should they not of accepted the judgement ?
At which point did the lawyers fail ?

the first judgements list of proven facts did not contain the statement of facts re the dogs........the truth of that staetement was of no importance as the first judge pointed out . It wasnt important because it wasnt  a ibel trial.
thats where the lawyers failed. If it had been a libel trial the McCanns would have won

[Mr Gray]

Please try not to think that we are all unable to understand.  Although I agree that Gunit isn't able.  Or probably doesn't want to, which might be more to the point.

im not being dismissive of anyone. ive asked many times how the dog alerts became  a proven fact....when they werent. No one has ben able to answer........but now Ive worked it out. ...and ive already explaned it

[Mr Gray]

When the Judge dismissed Gerry for contesting the dogs evidence....that was due to the incompetence of the McCanns lawyers

[Wonderfulspam]

When the Judge dismissed Gerry for contesting the dogs evidence....that was due to the incompetence of the McCanns lawyers

Reported to moderator for defaming the McCanns lawyers.

[Mr Gray]

Reported to moderator for defaming the McCanns lawyers.

If they tried to sue me they'd cock it up

[barrier]

the first judgements list of proven facts did not contain the statement of facts re the dogs........the truth of that staetement was of no importance as the first judge pointed out . It wasnt important because it wasnt  a ibel trial.
thats where the lawyers failed. If it had been a libel trial the McCanns would have won

From the 1st judgement.Proven facts.

https://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=6307.0

6. The British police dogs “Eddie” and “Keela” detected human blood and cadaver in the apartment 5A, Ocean Club [alínea AR) of the undisputed facts].

7. The British police dogs “Eddie” and “Keela” detected human blood and cadaver in a vehicle rented by the claimants after the disappearance of MMC [alínea AS) of the undisputed facts].

[Mr Gray]

From the 1st judgement.Proven facts.

https://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=6307.0

6. The British police dogs “Eddie” and “Keela” detected human blood and cadaver in the apartment 5A, Ocean Club [alínea AR) of the undisputed facts].

7. The British police dogs “Eddie” and “Keela” detected human blood and cadaver in a vehicle rented by the claimants after the disappearance of MMC [alínea AS) of the undisputed facts].

Very good..now show the proven facts from the initial trial...

[barrier]

Very good..now show the proven facts from the initial trial...

No, your argument should be how the judge came to determine the proven facts. Now once again you're argument now seems to be that the McCann lawyers cocked up, how could they contest the judgement in their favour ?

Now some where along the way the McCann's would have been advised which course of action to take although ultimately the person who pays the piper calls the tune.