ECHR urge McCanns to reach friendly settlement with Gonçalo Amaral.

[Mr Gray]

I haven't seen the bolded information, please provide a link.

An estate agent could have written the book using the released PJ Files. Opinion, which is what Amaral claimed his book was, is not usually seen as defamatory.

Of course opinion is defamatory. Amaral claimed he could provve MM died in  the apartment and the death was covered up

[G-Unit]

Of course opinion is defamatory. Amaral claimed he could provve MM died in  the apartment and the death was covered up

I think you forgot the link I requested.

I don't know about Portugal, but Carter Ruck say;


(2) Honest Opinion: it is a defence to a defamation claim if the publisher can show that what they published was a statement of opinion; that the statement complained of indicated the basis of that opinion; and that an honest person could have held the opinion based on any fact which existed at the time the statement was made. The defence is defeated if the claimant can show that the defendant did in fact not hold the opinion.
https://www.carter-ruck.com/expertise/reputation-media-privacy/defamation-faqs/#:~:text=(2)%20Honest%20Opinion%3A%20it,at%20the%20time%20the%20statement

[Mr Gray]

I think you forgot the link I requested.

I don't know about Portugal, but Carter Ruck say;


(2) Honest Opinion: it is a defence to a defamation claim if the publisher can show that what they published was a statement of opinion; that the statement complained of indicated the basis of that opinion; and that an honest person could have held the opinion based on any fact which existed at the time the statement was made. The defence is defeated if the claimant can show that the defendant did in fact not hold the opinion.
https://www.carter-ruck.com/expertise/reputation-media-privacy/defamation-faqs/#:~:text=(2)%20Honest%20Opinion%3A%20it,at%20the%20time%20the%20statement

Honest opinion is not as simple as that.... If it was then Tony wouldnt have agreed to settle

Honest opinion has to be based on true facts.. It is not a true fact that the dogs alerted to the past presence if a cadaver in 5a...there are lots more

[Mr Gray]

I think you forgot the link I requested.

I don't know about Portugal, but Carter Ruck say;


(2) Honest Opinion: it is a defence to a defamation claim if the publisher can show that what they published was a statement of opinion; that the statement complained of indicated the basis of that opinion; and that an honest person could have held the opinion based on any fact which existed at the time the statement was made. The defence is defeated if the claimant can show that the defendant did in fact not hold the opinion.
https://www.carter-ruck.com/expertise/reputation-media-privacy/defamation-faqs/#:~:text=(2)%20Honest%20Opinion%3A%20it,at%20the%20time%20the%20statement

Just on excert from teh book...


English and Portuguese police get together to analyse the results of Eddie and Keela's searches.

- What we can deduce at this stage is that only the McCanns are implicated. The dogs did not detect blood or cadaver odour other than with them.

- From now on we have the certainty that there was a body behind the sofa before being taken into the parents' bedroom.

- If the blood found behind the sofa is that of the little girl, we can assume that she died there.

So is it clear Amaral is only giving opinion....and how much of his opinion is based on true facts. it is no wonder that some people who are not faniliar with the true facts beleive amarals rubbis. Not only that he is saying that UK police were there at the meeting and helped form the conclusions...absolute junk

Mark Harrison describes a meeting where Grime expalined to the portuguese taht the alerts confirmed nothing

[G-Unit]

Honest opinion is not as simple as that.... If it was then Tony wouldnt have agreed to settle

Honest opinion has to be based on true facts.. It is not a true fact that the dogs alerted to the past presence if a cadaver in 5a...there are lots more

Still no sign of the link I requested. Who the heck is Tony?

PROVEN FACTS

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].
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=6307.0 page 8

[Mr Gray]

Still no sign of the link I requested. Who the heck is Tony?

PROVEN FACTS

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].
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=6307.0 page 8

But that isnt true... Amaral and the rest of thr PJ were told it wasnt true.... Its in the files. Its no wonder the SC said thete wad insufficient as opposed to no evidence... They must hsve brlieved the BS

[Vertigo Swirl]

Still no sign of the link I requested. Who the heck is Tony?

PROVEN FACTS

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].
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=6307.0 page 8

Out of interest how were these facts proved?  On what evidence or whose say so?

[kizzy]

I think you will find it was lost because the SC failed in their duty to uphold European Law. Amarsl has been quiet for a long time..if he repeats his allegations he could find himself back in a Portuguese court

.if he repeats his allegations he could find himself back in a Portuguese court


Is that in your opinion .....we don't know they are allegations imo. The abduction has never been proved.



the cases they are relying on were in several cases quoted as precedents by the Supreme Court In Portugal.
So how they think they help their case is a mystery

Larrañaga v Spain was thrown out before a hearing and is therefore NOT a precedent which can be used in a legal argument
Axel Springer ruled in favour of freedom of publication


Von Hannover also ruled in favour of publication on the grounds that von Hannover (Royal family of Monaco) seek publicity, and therefore cannot suddenly complain about Press intrusion (Like the McCanns ? ? ? ?)
Bedat lost on a technicality and had to pay €40

Allen, the UK case, is an important one.    She was found guilty, imprisoned, and then the verdict was annulled when new evidence came to light.   The DPP decided not to enter another prosecution because she had already done some prison time, and it was simply not worth it.  She claimed compensation, claiming the lack of prosecution proved her INNOCENCE.    The ECHR held it did not.
   
The Supreme Court went through this case (Allen) in detail, and showed how it related to the McCanns, then went on to say that the shelving of the case did NOT indicate their innocence.   Only that there was insufficient evidence to prosecute, which is not the same thing.

[Mr Gray]

.if he repeats his allegations he could find himself back in a Portuguese court


Is that in your opinion .....we don't know they are allegations imo. The abduction has never been proved.



the cases they are relying on were in several cases quoted as precedents by the Supreme Court In Portugal.
So how they think they help their case is a mystery

Larrañaga v Spain was thrown out before a hearing and is therefore NOT a precedent which can be used in a legal argument
Axel Springer ruled in favour of freedom of publication


Von Hannover also ruled in favour of publication on the grounds that von Hannover (Royal family of Monaco) seek publicity, and therefore cannot suddenly complain about Press intrusion (Like the McCanns ? ? ? ?)
Bedat lost on a technicality and had to pay €40

Allen, the UK case, is an important one.    She was found guilty, imprisoned, and then the verdict was annulled when new evidence came to light.   The DPP decided not to enter another prosecution because she had already done some prison time, and it was simply not worth it.  She claimed compensation, claiming the lack of prosecution proved her INNOCENCE.    The ECHR held it did not.
   
The Supreme Court went through this case (Allen) in detail, and showed how it related to the McCanns, then went on to say that the shelving of the case did NOT indicate their innocence.   Only that there was insufficient evidence to prosecute, which is not the same thing.

Copied and pasted from cmomm... I wonder if you actuallly read it..
Axel Springer claimed article 8 on the basis s newspaper said he had been arrested for possession of cocaine..

Do you know why the ECHR ruled in favour of freedom of speech... I do..

Because he had been arrested for possession of cocaine..

In Allen Vs ECHR.. Allen was wrong to think her aquittal proved her innocence.... Tje mccanns never claimed the arvhiving despatch proved innocence.

Petermac needs to understand the cases he quotes but he doesnt have to... Because some people just believe any old rubbish as long as its anti mccann

[G-Unit]

But that isnt true... Amaral and the rest of thr PJ were told it wasnt true.... Its in the files. Its no wonder the SC said thete wad insufficient as opposed to no evidence... They must hsve brlieved the BS

I have no idea why or how the proven and unproven facts emerged, but they are listed and they exist.

[Mr Gray]

I have no idea why or how the proven and unproven facts emerged, but they are listed and they exist.

And they are not true. How can you explain Amarals total ignorance when it comes to the alerts

[G-Unit]

And they are not true. How can you explain Amarals total ignorance when it comes to the alerts

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. 

[Vertigo Swirl]

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.

Is it reasonable to assume when people’s reputation, livelihoods and liberty are at stake?  Really, you do surprise me sometimes.  What happened to your ABC?

[G-Unit]

Is it reasonable to assume when people’s reputation, livelihoods and liberty are at stake?  Really, you do surprise me sometimes.  What happened to your ABC?

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

[Carana]

Out of interest how were these facts proved?  On what evidence or whose say so?

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