Does the European Court of Human Rights, Indeed, Beckon?

[stephen25000]

amaral gives the foundation...his own complete failure to understand the dog and dna evidence

In correct as usual.

He was the case coordinator.

Other officers shared his theory.

It was the UK Police who initially told the PJ to investigate the mccanns.

Just keep to the facts please.

[stephen25000]

Now would that be rather like we only have the mccanns word for their version of events ? &%+((£

[Mr Gray]

In correct as usual.

He was the case coordinator.

Other officers shared his theory.

It was the UK Police who initially told the PJ to investigate the mccanns.

Just keep to the facts please.

amaral misunderstood the dna and the dogs...fact

[stephen25000]

amaral misunderstood the dna and the dogs...fact

It is quite possible the dogs alerts were of a body.

The lack of forensic corroboration either way does not preclude that possibility.

FACT.

There is nothing else in this case to indicate at Madeleine's fate.

[slartibartfast]

It is quite possible the dogs alerts were of a body.

The lack of forensic corroboration either way does not preclude that possibility.

FACT.

There is nothing else in this case to indicate at Madeleine's fate.

Similarly the DNA did not exclude Madeleine.

[G-Unit]

the very fact that a portuguese court found in favour proves the claims were not unfounded

That judgement has been overturned and it relied solely on Amaral's duties as a retired policeman. Had he been a civilian the first court wouldn't have found against him.

[Mr Gray]

That judgement has been overturned and it relied solely on Amaral's duties as a retired policeman. Had he been a civilian the first court wouldn't have found against him.

the fact the judgement was  overturned proves the case was not vexatious

[Mr Gray]

Similarly the DNA did not exclude Madeleine.

if its inconclusive then no conclusions can be drawn

[ferryman]

It is the last 2 words which undermine your accusations. There was foundation for the suspicion which arose.

None, whatever.

[stephen25000]

if its inconclusive then no conclusions can be drawn

Of course conclusions can be drawn.

However, the indications can't be used by themselves in court.

We do know that.

[G-Unit]

the fact the judgement was  overturned proves the case was not vexatious

I don't follow your reasoning. Vexatious means litigation undertaken (regardless of it's merits) in order to harass  and subdue an adversary.

In this case none of the various claims were able to be proved to the extent that an award of damages could be based on them.

The first judge relied on her perception of wrongdoing by Amaral in connection with the restrictions imposed by his job in order to find for the McCanns.

The Appeal Court judges decided those restrictions didn't apply because the matters he discussed in his book were already known.

[ferryman]

Of course conclusions can be drawn.

However, the indications can't be used by themselves in court.

We do know that.

Inconclusive (in a legal context) means the state of knowledge (about what may, or may not, have happened, exactly the same after forensic examination as before).

In other words, no knowledge gained (from forensic examination carried out).

Might, just as well, never have bothered conducting forensic examination.

In that sense, inconclusive!

[Mr Gray]

I don't follow your reasoning. Vexatious means litigation undertaken (regardless of it's merits) in order to harass  and subdue an adversary.

In this case none of the various claims were able to be proved to the extent that an award of damages could be based on them.

The first judge relied on her perception of wrongdoing by Amaral in connection with the restrictions imposed by his job in order to find for the McCanns.

The Appeal Court judges decided those restrictions didn't apply because the matters he discussed in his book were already known.

i follow your reasoning...you have decided...in your opinion the mccanns case is vexatious...that s all it is...your opinion

[stephen25000]

i follow your reasoning...you have decided...in your opinion the mccanns case is vexatious...that s all it is...your opinion

Just refer to the Portuguese Appeal Judgement.

[Mr Gray]

I don't follow your reasoning. Vexatious means litigation undertaken (regardless of it's merits) in order to harass  and subdue an adversary.

In this case none of the various claims were able to be proved to the extent that an award of damages could be based on them.

The first judge relied on her perception of wrongdoing by Amaral in connection with the restrictions imposed by his job in order to find for the McCanns.

The Appeal Court judges decided those restrictions didn't apply because the matters he discussed in his book were already known.

you have altered the definition to suit your agenda...you posted
litigation undertaken (regardless of it's merits) in order to harass

it should read

litigation undertaken (regardless of it's merits) SOLELY to harass

the fact that you have altered the defn to suit your agenda is a sure sign of bias and a closed mind