Did Gonçalo Amaral misinterpret the evidence?

[xtina]

I think they thought they had evidence... They misunderstood.. Imo

so it would have been inadmissible evidence...if they misunderstood it ...

they had the best legal team money could buy...etc etc etc...

no excuse for the mccs to flee....

[Mr Gray]

so it would have been inadmissible evidence...if they misunderstood it ...

they had the best legal team money could buy...etc etc etc...

no excuse for the mccs to flee....

The evidence they misunderstood was accepted by the court as a proven fact

[Eleanor]

The evidence they misunderstood was accepted by the court as a proven fact

That is really scary.

[G-Unit]

The alerts to cadaver seem to be a proven fact in the portuguese court...so your claim should carry a caveat.
as they have never been proven to be a fact in any court this raises question about the portuguese justice system. Portugal seems to accept facts a s proven without any evidence....no wonder the mccanns fled

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.

[Mr Gray]

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.

But in previous ECHR judgements the veracity of the claims has been seen to be important...

[Vertigo Swirl]

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.

The right of one person to publish lies versus the rights of others not to be lied about in other words.  In Portugal liars rights are more important.

[jassi]

The right of one person to publish lies versus the rights of others not to be lied about in other words.  In Portugal liars rights are more important.

The oracle has spoken. Nothing more to be said   

[G-Unit]

The right of one person to publish lies versus the rights of others not to be lied about in other words.  In Portugal liars rights are more important.

Amaral said the 'facts' in his book were taken from the investigation. The court agreed;

It is proved that the facts in the book and in the documentary, concerning the investigation, are mostly facts that took place in the investigation and are documented as such.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=5931.0

So Amaral used 'facts' from the investigation. Those 'facts' have never been tested in a criminal court, so their truth or otherwise is a matter of opinion.

[G-Unit]

But in previous ECHR judgements the veracity of the claims has been seen to be important...

As this case never came to court, nothing has been proved to be true or false.

[Mr Gray]

As this case never came to court, nothing has been proved to be true or false.

The alerts are not proven facts...that is a false statement

[Mr Gray]

Amaral said the 'facts' in his book were taken from the investigation. The court agreed;

It is proved that the facts in the book and in the documentary, concerning the investigation, are mostly facts that took place in the investigation and are documented as such.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=5931.0

So Amaral used 'facts' from the investigation. Those 'facts' have never been tested in a criminal court, so their truth or otherwise is a matter of opinion.

read it again....it says he used mostly facts....so some of his facts were not from the investigation...as the facts have not been tested there are no proven facts. From previous ECHR cases the court will consider the evidence amaral ahs used to support his claims...and whether it is true or not

[Vertigo Swirl]

Amaral said the 'facts' in his book were taken from the investigation. The court agreed;

It is proved that the facts in the book and in the documentary, concerning the investigation, are mostly facts that took place in the investigation and are documented as such.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=5931.0

So Amaral used 'facts' from the investigation. Those 'facts' have never been tested in a criminal court, so their truth or otherwise is a matter of opinion.

LOL at “mostly facts”.  So the book was “mostly truthful” .  My point stands.  Portugal found that the right to be lied about is more important that the right to be protected from being lied about. 

[xtina]

But in previous ECHR judgements the veracity of the claims has been seen to be important...

do you know if it has been accepted...

maybe there's ........is not important enough.....

[xtina]

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

[G-Unit]

read it again....it says he used mostly facts....so some of his facts were not from the investigation...as the facts have not been tested there are no proven facts. From previous ECHR cases the court will consider the evidence amaral ahs used to support his claims...and whether it is true or not

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.