Do the sceptics simply misunderstand the evidence

[Carana]

The process of law is adversarial whereby if you don't contest something, then by default you are accepting it.

General information
1.1 Structure of the legal system

Portugal’s legal system is a civil law system.
As per civil proceedings, the Portuguese legal system should not be qualified as adversarial
or inquisitorial. The civil procedure is based on the dispositive principle, which means that
the  parties  are  responsible  for  alleging  the  facts,  gathering  evidence  and  determining  the 
nature of the evidence they choose to provide.

The court’s role is primarily to conduct and oversee the proceedings to ensure that the evi-
dence given is within the rules. It then weighs the evidence, according to pre-existing rules,
to render its judgment.

The court may, however, on its own initiative, request any evidence that it deems necessary
to reach its decision, based on the facts lawfully acknowledged by it. Indeed, under Articles
411, 417, 452, 467 and 526 of the Civil Procedure Code (hereinafter “CPC”), the Court may
call the parties to testify, order expert witnesses, call witnesses to testify and ask the parties
or third parties to disclose documents or other evidence to support the facts. Witnesses’ tes-
timonies are taken by the parties’ lawyers, but the parties’ testimony is taken by the judge.

https://www.mlgts.pt/xms/files/Publicacoes/Artigos/2014/Chambers_Legal_Practice_Guides_Litigation_2014.pdf

[Carana]

It was the judges who called it an accepted fact or whatever the term was.  "Undisputed fact".

And what happened when Gerry attempted to dispute it?

[Alice Purjorick]

Just another delaying tactic by the parents of a missing child who gave b....r all thought to her human rights when they left her alone with her twin toddler siblings night after night. It's rather hypocritical of them now to attempt to seek human rights imo but then no real surprise if I'm honest. 😏

I do not think it was anymore complicated than an application to the ECtHR was the only card left to play and play it they must in order to preserve credibility.

[Robittybob1]

And what happened when Gerry attempted to dispute it?

He was told this isn't the time to dispute it, so where did they get the notion it was an undisputed fact?  It had to be some prior case IMO.
My point was that Gerry never mentioned cadaver odour but he mentioned blood.

What did he say now - there was no blood found?    I was wondering what he really meant by that?

Was he saying he knows about Madeleine and she never bled on the night she died?  (In the sense there was no bleeding therefore no blood to find.)
Or was he saying the lab never found any blood?  (As the spots that Keela alerted too were too small to test for blood and DNA testing at the same time. That was my impression.)
What did you think he meant?

[faithlilly]

I do not think it was anymore complicated than an application to the ECtHR was the only card left to play and play it they must in order to preserve credibility.

Exactly.

[Carana]

He was told this isn't the time to dispute it, so where did they get the notion it was an undisputed fact?  It had to be some prior case IMO.
My point was that Gerry never mentioned cadaver odour but he mentioned blood.

What did he say now - there was no blood found?    I was wondering what he really meant by that?

Was he saying he knows about Madeleine and she never bled on the night she died?  (In the sense there was no bleeding therefore no blood to find.)
Or was he saying the lab never found any blood?  (As the spots that Keela alerted too were too small to test for blood and DNA testing at the same time. That was my impression.)
What did you think he meant?

Bear in mind that these are notes taken by someone attending the trial, not an official transcript.

As he was interrupted, there's no way of knowing exactly what he wanted to say. IMO, he may well have wanted to point out that the forensic analysis didn't establish the presence of blood.
 

[G-Unit]

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 - We are not here to prove if the contents of the book are truthful or not.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=4746.0

[Carana]

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 - We are not here to prove if the contents of the book are truthful or not.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=4746.0

Thanks. G-Unit. I did vaguely recollect that Gerry mentioned "cadaver odour", but that wasn't in the notes in the cite I'd found.

[Robittybob1]

Thanks. G-Unit. I did vaguely recollect that Gerry mentioned "cadaver odour", but that wasn't in the notes in the cite I'd found.

There is also the disclaimer "Important Notice
Readers are warned that this court Report is not a verbatim account of events but is merely a summary. 
As the content is sourced via a third party and although checks are made, the forum cannot guarantee
its veracity.  All reports are made in good faith."

Even if I was to accept that Gerry said in court "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..."  It is then clear that he is not talking about the apartment.  He is only disputing the undisputed facts about the hire car.

I think Gerry would be aware that cadaver odour can not be confirmed by scientific test so if a cadaver dog alerts you can never prove whether it was to cadaver odour other than in the case of a known training test.

[Robittybob1]

The process of law is adversarial whereby if you don't contest something, then by default you are accepting it.

Different rules for civil and criminal cases.  Civil cases are not adversarial.

[Mr Gray]

There is also the disclaimer "Important Notice
Readers are warned that this court Report is not a verbatim account of events but is merely a summary. 
As the content is sourced via a third party and although checks are made, the forum cannot guarantee
its veracity.  All reports are made in good faith."

Even if I was to accept that Gerry said in court "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..."  It is then clear that he is not talking about the apartment.  He is only disputing the undisputed facts about the hire car.

I think Gerry would be aware that cadaver odour can not be confirmed by scientific test so if a cadaver dog alerts you can never prove whether it was to cadaver odour other than in the case of a known training test.

Then how can the court claim the cadaver odour, as a proven fact..... Although I now think I know the answer

[Carana]

Are the defendants' documents online? If so, seeing what they wrote about the dogs might help. Was that assertion submitted, with simply Grime's report as an annexe? If so, I find it inaccurately worded as a factual statement, but on the other hand it was a major feature presented in GA's book / documentary / articles.

IMO, as there was no forensic evidence to invalidate or corroborate it, there was no direct omission of e.g., forensic evidence that could be disputed, although, for some reason, the caveats about needing corroboration didn't seem to have been taken into account. Maybe coffee spilled on them all.

A key point, IMO, is that it was a civil case, not a criminal one:

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.

[Carana]

Then how can the court claim the cadaver odour, as a proven fact..... Although I now think I know the answer

My best guess is that that is how it was presented in the defendants' documents, with Grime's reports as an annexe.

Judge glances at it, yes, one dog trained as a VRD, the other to detect blood... they alerted. Tick.

Next.

[Robittybob1]

Then how can the court claim the cadaver odour, as a proven fact..... Although I now think I know the answer

That is an interesting question Davel, for it was never established in a court trial.  So who decided on the undisputed facts?  I have a feeling it must be some sort of pretrial decision.  Did the McCann lawyer get to check what facts were considered undisputed facts?

[Mr Gray]

That is an interesting question Davel, for it was never established in a court trial.  So who decided on the undisputed facts?  I have a feeling it must be some sort of pretrial decision.  Did the McCann lawyer get to check what facts were considered undisputed facts?

Thinking  about it.. It may be that the police.. Prosecution... Put forward their claimed proven facts on which the case is based. In a criminal trial these facts can then be countered... Disputed.. By the defence.  As there never was, a, criminal trial these proven facts, remain on file and undisputed