Wandering Off Topic

[misty]

You claimed they would win the libel case, you were right.  You claimed they would win the subsequent appeal by Amaral, you were wrong.  You claimed they would win the Supreme Court appeal launched by the parents, you were wrong.  You claimed the SC decision would be set aside on review, you were wrong. You now claim that the parents will win a ECHR review of the case, in my opinion you will again be wrong.

How many Portuguese national laws did the Appeal/SC have to set aside to repudiate the McCanns' appeals?
1. Appeal court ruled duty of reserve did not apply to Amaral.
2. The definition of Public Person was abused to the benefit of the defendant.
3. The right to Presumption of Innocence was abused by the SC.
4. The SC changed the filing article in the archiving report
5. The SC declared that the book was written as a Value Judgement of the investigation, whereas the real judgement value, in the form of Almeida's interim report, was already in the files. That is acceptable within the confines of a police investigation but against the law when repeated by a private citizen.

ETA Answers are all my opinion only based on facts.

[Robittybob1]

How many Portuguese national laws did the Appeal/SC have to set aside to repudiate the McCanns' appeals?
1. Appeal court ruled duty of reserve did not apply to Amaral.
2. The definition of Public Person was abused to the benefit of the defendant.
3. The right to Presumption of Innocence was abused by the SC.
4. The SC changed the filing article in the archiving report
5. The SC declared that the book was written as a Judgement Value of the investigation, whereas the real judgement value, in the form of Almeida's interim report, was already in the files. That is acceptable within the confines of a police investigation but against the law when repeated by a private citizen.

ETA Answers are all my opinion only based on facts.

Have we discussed point #5 at any time?

[misty]

Have we discussed point #5 at any time?

Not that I'm aware of.

[slartibartfast]

How many Portuguese national laws did the Appeal/SC have to set aside to repudiate the McCanns' appeals?
1. Appeal court ruled duty of reserve did not apply to Amaral.
2. The definition of Public Person was abused to the benefit of the defendant.
3. The right to Presumption of Innocence was abused by the SC.
4. The SC changed the filing article in the archiving report
5. The SC declared that the book was written as a Value Judgement of the investigation, whereas the real judgement value, in the form of Almeida's interim report, was already in the files. That is acceptable within the confines of a police investigation but against the law when repeated by a private citizen.

ETA Answers are all my opinion only based on facts.

2 the McCanns choose to make themselves public persons.
3 presumption of innocence was deemed not in scope as it wasn’t a criminal trial
4 corrected based of the words (the important bit) in the archiving report
5 was GA’s knowledges of the investigation which was allowed by 1

IMO based on the facts.

[Mr Gray]

You claimed they would win the libel case, you were right.  You claimed they would win the subsequent appeal by Amaral, you were wrong.  You claimed they would win the Supreme Court appeal launched by the parents, you were wrong.  You claimed the SC decision would be set aside on review, you were wrong. You now claim that the parents will win a ECHR review of the case, in my opinion you will again be wrong.

I claimed they would win the first case and. I was right...I said they may well lose the appeal...I was right...I made no predictions for the SC...or the appeal...you are wrong.

[Mr Gray]

Always assuming it was accepted as being valid in the first place.  The court has made no reference to the case and so much time has now passed that I suspect it was never accepted or was withdrawn.

Afaiac....if the case is rejected a rejection is published...as happened in a recent case...we have seen no rejection

[Mr Gray]

2 the McCanns choose to make themselves public persons.
3 presumption of innocence was deemed not in scope as it wasn’t a criminal trial
4 corrected based of the words (the important bit) in the archiving report
5 was GA’s knowledges of the investigation which was allowed by 1

IMO based on the facts.

1. The McCanns have invoked the principle of presumption of innocence to justify the restrictions they want imposed on dr. Amaral's freedom of expression;

2. The Supreme Court stated, in its ruling, that the above is no argument because the McCanns were not considered innocent by the investigation and the case was archived because not enough evidence was found to charge them.


this is based on a transaltion of the original court documents....nothing about it being a civil trial...im fairly sure Ive seen a case on the ECHR where the POI was invoked in a similar civil trial



so according to this very reliable quote...the mccanns were denied the POI because the investigation didnt think they were innocent...what a ridiculous argument by the SC

[G-Unit]

1. The McCanns have invoked the principle of presumption of innocence to justify the restrictions they want imposed on dr. Amaral's freedom of expression;

2. The Supreme Court stated, in its ruling, that the above is no argument because the McCanns were not considered innocent by the investigation and the case was archived because not enough evidence was found to charge them.


this is based on a transaltion of the original court documents....nothing about it being a civil trial...im fairly sure Ive seen a case on the ECHR where the POI was invoked in a similar civil trial



so according to this very reliable quote...the mccanns were denied the POI because the investigation didnt think they were innocent...what a ridiculous argument by the SC

Who wrote that?

[Mr Gray]

Who wrote that?

Arguição de Nulidade do Acórdão

http://pjga.blogspot.com/?m=0

it must come as a surprise to you....note....the mccanns dont claim innocence...they claim the presumption of innocence

[Mr Gray]

Im sure everyone would agree that to deny someone the presumpyion of innocence because the investigation did not think them innocent  is a clear breach of ECHR...a massive own goal by the SC. The actual ruling is there in portuguese if anyone wishes to contradict the transaltion and interpretation given

[slartibartfast]

Afaiac....if the case is rejected a rejection is published...as happened in a recent case...we have seen no rejection

We have also seen no submission to be fair.

[slartibartfast]

Im sure everyone would agree that to deny someone the presumpyion of innocence because the investigation did not think them innocent  is a clear breach of ECHR...a massive own goal by the SC. The actual ruling is there in portuguese if anyone wishes to contradict the transaltion and interpretation given

From the SC ruling...

It must be reminded that, in the present case, the issue isn't the appellants' penal liability, in other words their innocence or their guilt concerning the facts leading to the disappearance of her daughter doesn't have to be appreciated here.

What is in discussion here is merely the civil liability of the respondents, on the grounds that they have expressed and disclosed the above-mentioned thesis/opinion on the disappearance in question.

It follows that the outcome of the present case is not such as to call into question the extra-procedural dimension of the presumption of innocence.

This means that, even if the action does not proceed, it will not imply, even in the eyes of the community. any consideration of the appellants' liability, because such outcome will never will be able to be equated to an observation of respective culpability (cf. on this topic the judgements Del Latte vs Holland (n°44760/98) of 9/11/2004 and Cheena vs Belgium of 9/5/2016).

[G-Unit]

Arguição de Nulidade do Acórdão

http://pjga.blogspot.com/?m=0

it must come as a surprise to you....note....the mccanns dont claim innocence...they claim the presumption of innocence

I can cherry pick too. From the same document (written by the McCann's lawyer btw);

their intimate relationship with the presumption of innocence or, if we wish to be more rigorous, the status of innocence that they enjoy.
http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/Annulment_request.htm

[Mr Gray]

I can cherry pick too. From the same document (written by the McCann's lawyer btw);

their intimate relationship with the presumption of innocence or, if we wish to be more rigorous, the status of innocence that they enjoy.
http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/Annulment_request.htm

When it comes to the law cherry picking is the norm

It is clear to me that the SC have stated that the McCanns do not benefit from the POI because the investigation did not deem them innocent....that is a crystal clear  breach of the ECHR

[G-Unit]

When it comes to the law cherry picking is the norm

It is clear to me that the SC have stated that the McCanns do not benefit from the POI because the investigation did not deem them innocent....that is a crystal clear  breach of the ECHR

The law, of course, has to provide cites so that the original quote and it's context can be examined. You keep forgetting to add yours.

You keep repeating your opinions of what occurred, but in my opinion you clearly don't understand the arguments were put forward. .