ECHR urge McCanns to reach friendly settlement with Gonçalo Amaral.

[G-Unit]

My understanding is that some of the so-called "proven facts" were true (Madeleine's DOB, etc.). A few others were disputed (from memory, some of the alleged revenue streams), but other points weren't allowed to be disputed (e.g., what the dogs actually reacted to), as disputing the veracity of what was in the files would have been the remit of a criminal trial, not the civil case for damages.

If my understanding is correct, if there had been "expert" testimony /a report in the files up until Amaral got booted to the effect that the parents had established a cloning factory on Jupiter, then that assertion, could - in theory -  have made the "proven fact" list for the purposes of the civil court case (based on the files established until Amaral was removed).

It couldn't have been disputed and was therefore officially undisputed... but that doesn't make the assertion true, only that it was recorded in the files up until his departure and was therefore not a total invention by Amaral.

The fact that Eddie would also alert to the scent of blood from a living human being appears to have only been established post-Amaral.

IMO, the dogs aren't the only issue.

May I ask how you reached your understanding of the meaning of the word facts in this context? I'm not denying you're correct, just wondering why the evidence supporting your view, which has been available for years, has never been quoted.

[Mr Gray]

The meeting apparently took place in Amaral's office, but I have never found it clear if Amaral was actually present or not.

Thats right it isnt clear... But the pj were informed so no excuse...
I think it should have been clear when amaral made the doc snd he did continue his discredit claims even after the files were released.
It also explains why the judge in the first instance silenced Gerry when he objected. Gunit has claimed that Duarte could have challenged it and didnt...... Which is obviously wrong

[Mr Gray]

May I ask how you reached your understanding of the meaning of the word facts in this context? I'm not denying you're correct, just wondering why the evidence supporting your view, which has been available for years, has never been quoted.

Its obvious there had to be such an explanation ad the facts clearly are not proven... Its most likely thst posters just dont understand Portuguese law

[Carana]

May I ask how you reached your understanding of the meaning of the word facts in this context? I'm not denying you're correct, just wondering why the evidence supporting your view, which has been available for years, has never been quoted.

Quoted by whom?

[G-Unit]

Its obvious there had to be such an explanation ad the facts clearly are not proven... Its most likely thst posters just dont understand Portuguese law

It's more likely imo that posters don't bother doing research. Judge Maria Emília de Melo e Castro said in 2015 that there was only one fact established in this case;

If “facts ascertained in the investigation" refers to those which, with rigour and according to the procedural-penal dogma, are the result of the investigation that was achieved, then only one deserves this qualification – the disappearance of Madeleine McCann.
https://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/v02.htm page 10

[G-Unit]

Quoted by whom?

By anyone, as far as I know.

[Mr Gray]

It's more likely imo that posters don't bother doing research. Judge Maria Emília de Melo e Castro said in 2015 that there was only one fact established in this case;

If “facts ascertained in the investigation" refers to those which, with rigour and according to the procedural-penal dogma, are the result of the investigation that was achieved, then only one deserves this qualification – the disappearance of Madeleine McCann.
https://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/v02.htm page 10

You claimed yesterday that the facts were established by the judge and there was a meeting where  objections could be raised. You even esrlier as I recall blamed Duarte for not objecting to them. You also claimed that as far as the Portuguese court was concerned the alert to cafaver eas a fact. You have contradicted yourself numerous times.
To suggest that posters dont research things is laughable... As are your recent posts... And becoming more laughable by the day... All my opinion

[G-Unit]

You claimed yesterday that the facts were established by the judge and there was a meeting where  objections could be raised. You even esrlier as I recall blamed Duarte for not objecting to them. You also claimed that as far as the Portuguese court was concerned the alert to cafaver eas a fact. You have contradicted yourself numerous times.
To suggest that posters dont research things is laughable... As are your recent posts... And becoming more laughable by the day... All my opinion

Like you, I can say anything I like. If you disagree feel free to do your research and prove me wrong. I've no intention of doing it for you.

[Mr Gray]

Like you, I can say anything I like. If you disagree feel free to do your research and prove me wrong. I've no intention of doing it for you.

Ive no interest in proving you wrong.. Your opinions are not important to me. Knowing you are wrong on so many points is enough

[Venturi Swirl]

Like you, I can say anything I like. If you disagree feel free to do your research and prove me wrong. I've no intention of doing it for you.

Only the other day you were telling Davel what he couldn't say - make up your mind!

[G-Unit]

Only the other day you were telling Davel what he couldn't say - make up your mind!

We can both say what we like BUT if Davel publicly names someone as a thief he is opening himself to being sued. I was reminding him that there are limitations on our freedom of speech. Did you miss that bit?

Wolters, of course, as a public official, has greater limitations on his freedom of speech.

[Mr Gray]

We can both say what we like BUT if Davel publicly names someone as a thief he is opening himself to being sued. I was reminding him that there are limitations on our freedom of speech. Did you miss that bit?

Wolters, of course, as a public official, has greater limitations on his freedom of speech.

Do you not understand... I would welcome being sued... Someone who is guilty is not going to want to go to court.
Im pointing out again... Its possible to have absolute proof of someones guilt but not enough evidence to charge

[Venturi Swirl]

We can both say what we like BUT if Davel publicly names someone as a thief he is opening himself to being sued. I was reminding him that there are limitations on our freedom of speech. Did you miss that bit?

Wolters, of course, as a public official, has greater limitations on his freedom of speech.

No I didn’t miss that bit, as if you recall I reminded you that the same rule of law should apply to any private citizen, including disgraced ex-cops. 

[G-Unit]

Do you not understand... I would welcome being sued... Someone who is guilty is not going to want to go to court.
Im pointing out again... Its possible to have absolute proof of someones guilt but not enough evidence to charge

If someone hasn't been found guilty by the courts there are legal measures available to be used against anyone who publicly pronounces them guilty. Those are the facts and your protestations don't change them.

[Venturi Swirl]

If someone hasn't been found guilty by the courts there are legal measures available to be used against anyone who publicly pronounces them guilty. Those are the facts and your protestations don't change them.

unless your accuser is Portuguese of course.