Did Gonçalo Amaral misinterpret the evidence?

[Mr Gray]

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.

The ECHR guarantees the right to a fair trial

[misty]

The ECHR guarantees the right to a fair trial

I think the original trial was probably as fair as the McCanns were going to get. It was when the Appeal & Supreme Courts got involved & moved goalposts that it all became unfair, not least when Amaral's duty of reserve was revoked for some frivolous reason.

[barrier]

I think the original trial was probably as fair as the McCanns were going to get. It was when the Appeal & Supreme Courts got involved & moved goalposts that it all became unfair, not least when Amaral's duty of reserve was revoked for some frivolous reason.

I see,  trial was fair the subsequent appeals weren't,tis a beggar this justice lark.

[misty]

I see,  trial was fair the subsequent appeals weren't,tis a beggar this justice lark.

I said it was as fair as they were going to get, judging by some recent decisions.

[G-Unit]

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.

A libel trial judge can't do the job of a criminal trial judge. Had she pronounced in the source of the dog alerts that's what she would have been doing.

[G-Unit]

I think the original trial was probably as fair as the McCanns were going to get. It was when the Appeal & Supreme Courts got involved & moved goalposts that it all became unfair, not least when Amaral's duty of reserve was revoked for some frivolous reason.

Amaral's duty of reserve wasn't revoked, it was found to be inapplicable.

[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?

It is interesting... MY OPINION... Is
From this case it seems the SC judgement may not be final... I'm happy to give my reasons to support my opinion but they have been removed

[Sunny]

It is interesting... MY OPINION... Is
From this case it seems the SC judgement is not final... I'm happy to give my reasons to support my opinion but they have been removed

Put your cite here Davel. I am sure I will find it interesting. I didn't see your cite before so must have missed it.

[Mr Gray]

Put your cite here Davel. I am sure I will find it interesting. I didn't see your cite before so must have missed it.

Ss I have said I have stated opinion which does not require a cite... The use of the words... seem.. And... may... Make it clear that I was not stating fact.
I did provide a logical argument to support my opinion but that too has been removed.. I'm not allowed to repost something  that has been removed... I've messaged John so hopefully I can post my supporting argument again

[Mr Gray]

Put your cite here Davel. I am sure I will find it interesting. I didn't see your cite before so must have missed it.

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.


See Briettas post for the link

[Mr Gray]

Ah so it was an opinion. OK I will treat your post as such.  I thought you had a cite to show why we should possibly agree with you.

Think about it logically...
Portugal sentences someone to 2o years... The SC uphold the sentence... The ECHR rule the trial was unfair... Does the person stay in jail for 20 years.. Is the SC judgement final

[Sunny]

Briettas post provides the cite... Which was clear as my post was in reply to it... I doubt there is an answer to my logical argument

I would say there was a world of difference between criminal and civil cases but I am not a lawyer.

[Mr Gray]

I would say there was a world of difference between criminal and civil cases but I am not a lawyer.

So you now accept the SC is not final?
The right to a fair trial applies to both civil and criminal cases... IMO the SC Judgement can be overturned.. Not by the ECHR but by Portugal itself

[misty]

Amaral's duty of reserve wasn't revoked, it was found to be inapplicable.

Did the SC use legal argument to explain why the duty attached to a retired police officer was revoked?

[xtina]

I think the original trial was probably as fair as the McCanns were going to get. It was when the Appeal & Supreme Courts got involved & moved goalposts that it all became unfair, not least when Amaral's duty of reserve was revoked for some frivolous reason.

Frivolous ....being the word......


McCann’s “frivolity” complaint rejected. Gonçalo Amaral’s ‘libel win’ confirmed for 3rd time....



This may be the end of the line for the long-running civil case taken out by the parents of Madeleine McCann to ‘silence’ their bête-noir, former PJ coordinator Gonçalo Amaral.

After all the hullaballoo and recriminations filling UK tabloids, Supreme court judge Dr Jorge Manuel Roque Nogueira has rejected the complaint lodged by Kate and Gerry McCann over what they considered a frivolous decision by fellow judges to uphold Gonçalo Amaral’s right to freedom of expression, sanctioning the intrinsic legality of his damning thesis ‘Maddie: the Truth of the Lie’.



McCann’s “frivolity” complaint rejected. Gonçalo Amaral’s ‘libel win’ confirmed for 3rd time