Did Gonçalo Amaral misinterpret the evidence?

[Mr Gray]

He used facts from the investigation. No-one knows if those facts are true or false. In order for the ECHR to decide they would have to investigate the case themselves and then use their own findings.

That isn't within their remit, which is why the McCann's lawyers argued so passionately that the archiving dispatch amounted to a legal judgement.

They tried from the beginning to equate the archiving dispatch to an acquittal because if someone has been acquitted by the courts no-one is allowed to say they're guilty thereafter.

The Supreme Court said it wasn't an acquittal, therefore others were allowed to express their opinions about the case.

I disagree with just about everything  you say... I note you are now talking about not being guilty  rather than innocent...I can't be bothered to go over the same points, again

[Eleanor]

well good to see...you accept there are two sides to the maddie case...

No.  Two sides to Opinions, or interpretations there of.  There is a difference.  I still believe that Madeleine was Abducted, and I don't really understand why others of you can't see what I see.

Nor do I see how Amaral so easily misinterpreted The Facts, unless it was for his own ends.

[Snowgirl]

No.  Two sides to Opinions, or interpretations there of.  There is a difference.  I still believe that Madeleine was Abducted, and I don't really understand why others of you can't see what I see.

Nor do I see how Amaral so easily misinterpreted The Facts, unless it was for his own ends.

What exactly can you see that  some others of us cannot ?

[barrier]

No.  Two sides to Opinions, or interpretations there of.  There is a difference.  I still believe that Madeleine was Abducted, and I don't really understand why others of you can't see what I see.

Nor do I see how Amaral so easily misinterpreted The Facts, unless it was for his own ends.

See I'm opened minded but have yet to see a argument for abduction above all else.

[Vertigo Swirl]

Do you accept that Madeleine was possibly abducted by a stranger?

[Snowgirl]

Do you accept that Madeleine was possibly abducted by a stranger?

As  Conan  Doyle’s character Sherlock Holmes said “When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.
I’d have to go with that if I’m honest but it remains to be proved doesn’t it in this case that a stranger took Mafeleine and so far no evidence of any such a thing .

[Vertigo Swirl]

As  Conan  Doyle’s character Sherlock Holmes said “When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.
I’d have to go with that if I’m honest but it remains to be proved doesn’t it in this case that a stranger took Mafeleine and so far no evidence of any such a thing .

What impossibles have you been able to eliminate?

[Snowgirl]

What impossibles have you been able to eliminate?

Abduction by  beings who could not possibly have been in the vicinity.

[Vertigo Swirl]

Abduction by  beings who could not possibly have been in the vicinity.

But you accept that abduction is possible by those in the vicinity?

[Snowgirl]

But you accept that abduction is possible by those in the vicinity?

   Havn't I just  agreed with Conan Doyle  that however improbable whatever remains must be the truth ?

[Vertigo Swirl]

   Havn't I just  agreed with Conan Doyle  that however improbable whatever remains must be the truth ?

TBH, I didn't quite understand what you were driving at.  Some sceptics use that quote to mean that abduction is impossible, leaving the 'parents dunnit' as the improbable truth. 

[Brietta]

The judge of the first instance made the position of the court in a civil case quite clear to Gerry McCann;

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.

That is interesting.

Although dealing with an appeal and a criminal not a civil case, I think the principle of the denial of allowing presentation of evidence might very well be relevant to the libel case which the McCanns lost on appeal in Portugal and have taken to the European Court of Human Rights as a result.

Trying to present evidence and being denied the right seems to be something frowned upon by the judges of the ECHR to the extent that it seems ... “O tribunal europeu chama a atenção para algumas falhas do nosso sistema de recursos” "The European court draws attention to some flaws in our system of appeals"
Vânia Costa Ramos

Which could have lasting repercussions when considered along with those that Davel has brought to the attention of the forum.

Anyway the upshot of the Carlos Cruz case which Portugal lost in the ECHR is that proceedings will now be instituted in Portugal for a review of the case.

I presume he too had gone through the appeal process which we have been told was FINAL  ... it would seem it is not.

Snip
The State decided not to appeal against the decision of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) which gave partial reason to a complaint by former television presenter Carlos Cruz in the Casa Pia case . Following this, your lawyer will proceed with a request for review of judgement of the case in Portugal.
https://www.publico.pt/2018/09/26/sociedade/noticia/casa-pia-estado-nao-recorre-de-decisao-do-tribunal-europeu-sobre-carlos-cruz-1845344
______________________________________________________________________

You have a better grasp of this situation than I, Davel.  What is your opinion?

[Mr Gray]

That is interesting.

Although dealing with an appeal and a criminal not a civil case, I think the principle of the denial of allowing presentation of evidence might very well be relevant to the libel case which the McCanns lost on appeal in Portugal and have taken to the European Court of Human Rights as a result.

Trying to present evidence and being denied the right seems to be something frowned upon by the judges of the ECHR to the extent that it seems ... “O tribunal europeu chama a atenção para algumas falhas do nosso sistema de recursos” "The European court draws attention to some flaws in our system of appeals"
Vânia Costa Ramos

Which could have lasting repercussions when considered along with those that Davel has brought to the attention of the forum.

Anyway the upshot of the Carlos Cruz case which Portugal lost in the ECHR is that proceedings will now be instituted in Portugal for a review of the case.

I presume he too had gone through the appeal process which we have been told was FINAL  ... it would seem it is not.

Snip
The State decided not to appeal against the decision of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) which gave partial reason to a complaint by former television presenter Carlos Cruz in the Casa Pia case . Following this, your lawyer will proceed with a request for review of judgement of the case in Portugal.
https://www.publico.pt/2018/09/26/sociedade/noticia/casa-pia-estado-nao-recorre-de-decisao-do-tribunal-europeu-sobre-carlos-cruz-1845344
______________________________________________________________________

You have a better grasp of this situation than I, Davel.  What is your opinion?

Interesting... certainly  the ECHR guarantees, the right to a fair trial so the refusal to accept Gerrys points on the dogs may be relevant but I feel the McCanns have a strong case without this.
The ECHR cannot overule a decision by a national court but it appears that a favourable judgement at the ECHR may allow Duarte to request a review of the SC decision so perhaps it is not as final as some would like to think... If you think about it a judgement by the SC cannot be final if it denies a persons rights under the ECHR..

Imagine someone convicted to 20 years..... And the ECHR ruled that person was not granted a fair trial.... Surely the decision by the domestic court would have to be reviewed and retried if necessary

[G-Unit]

That is interesting.

Although dealing with an appeal and a criminal not a civil case, I think the principle of the denial of allowing presentation of evidence might very well be relevant to the libel case which the McCanns lost on appeal in Portugal and have taken to the European Court of Human Rights as a result.

Trying to present evidence and being denied the right seems to be something frowned upon by the judges of the ECHR to the extent that it seems ... “O tribunal europeu chama a atenção para algumas falhas do nosso sistema de recursos” "The European court draws attention to some flaws in our system of appeals"
Vânia Costa Ramos

Which could have lasting repercussions when considered along with those that Davel has brought to the attention of the forum.

Anyway the upshot of the Carlos Cruz case which Portugal lost in the ECHR is that proceedings will now be instituted in Portugal for a review of the case.

I presume he too had gone through the appeal process which we have been told was FINAL  ... it would seem it is not.

Snip
The State decided not to appeal against the decision of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) which gave partial reason to a complaint by former television presenter Carlos Cruz in the Casa Pia case . Following this, your lawyer will proceed with a request for review of judgement of the case in Portugal.
https://www.publico.pt/2018/09/26/sociedade/noticia/casa-pia-estado-nao-recorre-de-decisao-do-tribunal-europeu-sobre-carlos-cruz-1845344
______________________________________________________________________

You have a better grasp of this situation than I, Davel.  What is your opinion?

In my opinion the judge was quite correct to refuse to listen to Gerry McCann. He wanted to talk about something which had no bearing on the case her court was considering.

[misty]

In my opinion the judge was quite correct to refuse to listen to Gerry McCann. He wanted to talk about something which had no bearing on the case her court was considering.

IMO what Gerry wanted to say about the cadaver dog should have been accepted in evidence. Whilst it was a proven fact a cadaver dog alerted in various McCann-related locations, it was not a proven fact the source of the alerts was Madeleine's cadaver - a vital point when considering libel.