Do the sceptics simply misunderstand the evidence

[Robittybob1]

No... Because it's listed as a proven fact... Which of course it isnt

The reference quoted says "undisputed fact" not proven fact. ""6. The British police dogs “Eddie” and “Keela” detected human blood and cadaver in the apartment 5A, Ocean Club [alínea AR) of the undisputed facts].

7. The British police dogs “Eddie” and “Keela” detected human blood and cadaver in a vehicle rented by the claimants after the disappearance of MMC [alínea AS) of the undisputed facts]."

[Mr Gray]

The reference quoted says "undisputed fact" not proven fact. ""6. The British police dogs “Eddie” and “Keela” detected human blood and cadaver in the apartment 5A, Ocean Club [alínea AR) of the undisputed facts].

7. The British police dogs “Eddie” and “Keela” detected human blood and cadaver in a vehicle rented by the claimants after the disappearance of MMC [alínea AS) of the undisputed facts]."

This has all been discussed many times before... In the SC judgement is listed as, a, proven fact... Page 19

[Robittybob1]

This has all been discussed many times before... In the SC judgement is listed as, a, proven fact... Page 19

Was that page 19 of the SC ruling?

[Mr Gray]

Was that page 19 of the SC ruling?

Yes

[Robittybob1]

Was that page 19 of the SC ruling?

" – Fundamental principles

1.2. In the appealed acórdão the following facts are considered proven :

1. The applicants Gerald McCann and Kate (sic) are married to each other.

2. The applicant Madeleine McCann was born on 12.5.2003 , daughter of Kate McCann and Gerald McCann.

3. The applicant Sean McCann was born on 1/2/2005, son of  Kate McCann and Gerald McCann.

4. The applicant Amelie McCann was born on 1/2/2005 , daughter of Kate McCann and Gerald McCann.

5. The applicant Madeleine McCann has been missing since 3/5/2007 , resulting in the criminal investigation n° 201/07.0 GALGS, opened by the prosecutor of Portimão.

6. The dogs Eddie and Keela, from the British police, have detected human blood and cadaver scent in the apartment 5A of the Ocean Club.


I have a feeling these are considered undisputed facts, not that the SC had actual proof of these.  Did they have the McCanns marriage licence in court.  Did they have birth certificates for the kids?

[Mr Gray]

" – Fundamental principles

1.2. In the appealed acórdão the following facts are considered proven :

1. The applicants Gerald McCann and Kate (sic) are married to each other.

2. The applicant Madeleine McCann was born on 12.5.2003 , daughter of Kate McCann and Gerald McCann.

3. The applicant Sean McCann was born on 1/2/2005, son of  Kate McCann and Gerald McCann.

4. The applicant Amelie McCann was born on 1/2/2005 , daughter of Kate McCann and Gerald McCann.

5. The applicant Madeleine McCann has been missing since 3/5/2007 , resulting in the criminal investigation n° 201/07.0 GALGS, opened by the prosecutor of Portimão.

6. The dogs Eddie and Keela, from the British police, have detected human blood and cadaver scent in the apartment 5A of the Ocean Club.


I have a feeling these are considered undisputed facts, not that the SC had actual proof of these.  Did they have the McCanns marriage licence in court.  Did they have birth certificates for the kids?

It says proven.... Doesn't matter what you feel

So why is the court saying it's proven when it's not proven

[Robittybob1]

It says proven.... Doesn't matter what you feel

So why is the court saying it's proven when it's not proven

It says "considered proven"  doesn't mean proven, just not disputed by the parties.

[Robittybob1]

It says "considered proven"  doesn't mean proven, just not disputed by the parties.

If I'm right about the McCann team accepting that there was cadaver odour found in the apartment and the car we have a new issue, as to why they accepted that as an undisputed fact.

[Brietta]

If I'm right about the McCann team accepting that there was cadaver odour found in the apartment and the car we have a new issue, as to why they accepted that as an undisputed fact.

I think it possible that Kate and Gerry have found the situation regarding the Portuguese judgement so unacceptable that they are in the process of complaining about it to the European Court of Human Rights.

[Robittybob1]

I think it possible that Kate and Gerry have found the situation regarding the Portuguese judgement so unacceptable that they are in the process of complaining about it to the European Court of Human Rights.

I agree but if you remember G-unit and I went to considerable effort in understanding where the components of the SC ruling came from and I'd say the undisputed facts were from a previous case.  I don't believe that is the bit they are complaining about.  But on what basis their case to the ECHR depends is all unknown currently.

[Carana]

If I'm right about the McCann team accepting that there was cadaver odour found in the apartment and the car we have a new issue, as to why they accepted that as an undisputed fact.

Hey? They didn't, but the judge wouldn't let Gerry dispute it.

[Robittybob1]

Hey? They didn't, but the judge wouldn't let Gerry dispute it.

Can you prove that?

[faithlilly]

I think it possible that Kate and Gerry have found the situation regarding the Portuguese judgement so unacceptable that they are in the process of complaining about it to the European Court of Human Rights.

How is that going ?

[Carana]

Can you prove that?

 There's no more questions and the Judge is about to dismiss the plaintiff when GMC claims that he has something to say.

The judge says that in a civil trial the parties aren't allowed to spontaneous depositions. But she allows him: please do speak!

GMC says that he wants to make a comment about the dogs; he wants to make it clear that it is not a fact that they detected blood...

The judge interrupts him – The issue here isn't not to elucidate what actually happened. The perspective, in this trial, is to determine whether the book and the documentary affected the plaintiffs.

GMC – But the book mentions facts that aren't true.

The judge – The point isn't to establish whether things are true or not, this is not the issue. We want to know whether we are in the juridical remit of offence to persons. For this it's not necessary to know what the truth is. As a judge I'm not supposed to stand in for a criminal investigation.

And so it ended
http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/Gerry_McCann_08_07_2014.htm

[Brietta]

How is that going ?

Probably a bit faster than the wheels of justice roll in Portugal.