ECHR urge McCanns to reach friendly settlement with Gonçalo Amaral.

[Vertigo Swirl]

Whose reputations, livelihoods and liberty were at stake in this libel trial?

Well the McCanns’ reputation was certainly at stake, but I was talking more about the general principle of assuming the dog alerts were correct without any corrobooration in any court of law.  Nicely sidestepped btw.

[Vertigo Swirl]

Grime's report, presumably. When Gerry tried to counter that assumption, he was told it wasn't a criminal case.

Grime’s report proves nothing, he even says as much in it himself.

[Carana]

That's your opinion, but you can't deny that the dogs alerted. You also can't deny what they were trained to alert to.
It's reasonable to assume that they found what they were trained to find.

Except that nothing of relevance was found...

[Carana]

Grime’s report proves nothing, he even says as much in it himself.

I know, but the judge presumably checked the files to see whether it was a total invention or if there was anything to that effect in the files.

In theory, Amaral could have said that they ate puppies for breakfast if someone had been on file as saying it.

[Mr Gray]

That's your opinion, but you can't deny that the dogs alerted. You also can't deny what they were trained to alert to.
It's reasonable to assume that they found what they were trained to find.

That is the probably one of the worst most illogical posts you have ever made showing total ignorance of the evidence.
No its not reasonable to sssume the alerts were to what they had trained for... Unless eddie was trained to alert for coconuts.

[Carana]

I assume that you agree with Duarte who claimed that the archiving dispatch was evidence (or was that proof?) of innocence.

According to the SC judges it could have been, had it truly  been archived under 277/1, but in their opinion it was actually archived under 277/2, because it could be reopened. See their reasoning here;

https://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/STJ_21_03_2017_Rejected.htm

This bit doesn't seem to make sense. As arguidos, POI applied... but when that status was lifted, it doesn't any more?

...Thus, it does not appear acceptable to consider that the alluded dispatch, based on the insufficiency of evidence, should be treated as evidence of innocence.

We consider, therefore, that the invocation of breach of the principle of presumption of innocence should not be upheld. That principle does not fall under the decision about the question that has to be resolved.

Consequently, the bases for the conclusion that invoking the breach of the principle of presumption of innocence should not be upheld, since that principle is not relevant for the decision at stake, are the various grounds alluded to in the text transcribed above. In other words, what is called upon right from the outset is that this principle is a rule of treatment to bestow upon the defendant throughout the criminal judicial process. At present, however, the issue is only the civil responsibility of the respondents. The above conclusion does not collide with the grounds on which it relies.

[Mr Gray]

This bit doesn't seem to make sense. As arguidos, POI applied... but when that status was lifted, it doesn't any more?

...Thus, it does not appear acceptable to consider that the alluded dispatch, based on the insufficiency of evidence, should be treated as evidence of innocence.

We consider, therefore, that the invocation of breach of the principle of presumption of innocence should not be upheld. That principle does not fall under the decision about the question that has to be resolved.

Consequently, the bases for the conclusion that invoking the breach of the principle of presumption of innocence should not be upheld, since that principle is not relevant for the decision at stake, are the various grounds alluded to in the text transcribed above. In other words, what is called upon right from the outset is that this principle is a rule of treatment to bestow upon the defendant throughout the criminal judicial process. At present, however, the issue is only the civil responsibility of the respondents. The above conclusion does not collide with the grounds on which it relies.

I dont see how anyone cannot see the archiving despatch as evidence of innocence... Not proof.... But evidence

[Brietta]

That's your opinion, but you can't deny that the dogs alerted. You also can't deny what they were trained to alert to.
It's reasonable to assume that they found what they were trained to find.

I think it is duplicitous to repeat for 'debating' purposes the ill conceived errors made by Amaral as recorded for posterity by Almeida as anything other than a record of their incompetence and ignorance.

Eddie 'alerted' amazingly only in areas associated with the McCanns when he was in Luz.  But Eddie was an excitable wee dog prone to indulging paroxysms of barking when he was on the job to no useful or rational effect.
This was noted in the final Policia Judiciaria report (the one that matters) by officers who understood the FSS report.

His excitability to no effect is recorded during the debacle of his visit to Haute de la Garenne in Jersey http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=2874.msg99065#msg99065   where no doubt he thought he was responding as he was trained to do.
Only problem was that he most certainly did not "find what he was trained to find" neither here nor in Luz.

I'm rather hoping that the ECHR will make an informed ruling based on the facts rather than the fantasy. 

[Mr Gray]

This bit doesn't seem to make sense. As arguidos, POI applied... but when that status was lifted, it doesn't any more?

...Thus, it does not appear acceptable to consider that the alluded dispatch, based on the insufficiency of evidence, should be treated as evidence of innocence.

We consider, therefore, that the invocation of breach of the principle of presumption of innocence should not be upheld. That principle does not fall under the decision about the question that has to be resolved.

Consequently, the bases for the conclusion that invoking the breach of the principle of presumption of innocence should not be upheld, since that principle is not relevant for the decision at stake, are the various grounds alluded to in the text transcribed above. In other words, what is called upon right from the outset is that this principle is a rule of treatment to bestow upon the defendant throughout the criminal judicial process. At present, however, the issue is only the civil responsibility of the respondents. The above conclusion does not collide with the grounds on which it relies.

According to ECHR guidance re article 8 in any  allegations
of criminal activity the person is entitled to the POI... Ill post the link later

[G-Unit]

That is the probably one of the worst most illogical posts you have ever made showing total ignorance of the evidence.
No its not reasonable to sssume the alerts were to what they had trained for... Unless eddie was trained to alert for coconuts.

Whatever you think, the proven and unproven facts were arrived at by the judge of the first instance and the lawyers representing the parties in the case accepted them.

Gerry McCann tried to interest the judge in his opinion of the dog alerts, but she wasn't interested;

"GMC - I want to speak about the sniffer dogs. They never alerted to any blood in the car and they never alerted to cadaver odour...

Judge [interrupts] – We are not here to ascertain that, our perspective here in this court is to analyse your claim.
GMC – But the book mentions facts that aren't true.

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. [Turns to the interpreter] Tell the gentleman that he is excused."
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=4746.0

[Eleanor]

Whatever you think, the proven and unproven facts were arrived at by the judge of the first instance and the lawyers representing the parties in the case accepted them.

Gerry McCann tried to interest the judge in his opinion of the dog alerts, but she wasn't interested;

"GMC - I want to speak about the sniffer dogs. They never alerted to any blood in the car and they never alerted to cadaver odour...

Judge [interrupts] – We are not here to ascertain that, our perspective here in this court is to analyse your claim.
GMC – But the book mentions facts that aren't true.

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. [Turns to the interpreter] Tell the gentleman that he is excused."
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=4746.0

Anyone who has any faith in Portuguese Law has got a serious problem.  That much I have learned.

[Mr Gray]

Whatever you think, the proven and unproven facts were arrived at by the judge of the first instance and the lawyers representing the parties in the case accepted them.

Gerry McCann tried to interest the judge in his opinion of the dog alerts, but she wasn't interested;

"GMC - I want to speak about the sniffer dogs. They never alerted to any blood in the car and they never alerted to cadaver odour...

Judge [interrupts] – We are not here to ascertain that, our perspective here in this court is to analyse your claim.
GMC – But the book mentions facts that aren't true.

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. [Turns to the interpreter] Tell the gentleman that he is excused."
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=4746.0

Thr point is the claim by Amaral isnt true... There is no confirmation of the alerts as  Amaral claims. As Ive wexplained to you the ECHR will be concerned with the veracity of tje claims.
Harrison describes a meeting with tje PJ where he and Grime explain the value if the alerts

Amaral claims a meeting where both PJ and UK police agree that the alerts cinfirm a cadaver in 5a

Someone is telling lies

[G-Unit]

Anyone who has any faith in Portuguese Law has got a serious problem.  That much I have learned.

Goncalo Amaral had faith in Portugal's legal system. It took a long time, but his faith was repaid eventually.

[Eleanor]

Goncalo Amaral had faith in Portugal's legal system. It took a long time, but his faith was repaid eventually.

Even if only briefly if what I have read is anything to go on.  And much good it hasn't done for him.

Sadly as ever, we still have to wait and see.

[Vertigo Swirl]

Goncalo Amaral had faith in Portugal's legal system. It took a long time, but his faith was repaid eventually.

The Portuguese legal system is an ass IMO, and in this instance it was a donkey that was rewarded by it IMO.