Author Topic: Madeleine McCann's parents lose libel case with the European Court of Human Rights  (Read 4277 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Icanhandlethetruth

Because I've looked at their website

t would only take you 2 seconds to type the name of the lawyers so I can google it.
You do know it don't you?

Offline Mr Gray

You have no understanding of it all. That has been proved.
 I don't even think you know of the actual workings of an ECHR proceedings.
You do know the lawyers don't actually present a case to the judges. The judges look at the contested judgement, the constitutional laws of the country and European law and make their judgment.
The lawyers role is very minor.

Imo you are making an absolute foo
If you read the judgement it highlights exactly why the mccanns felt the SC judgement was unfair....its all there in the judgement you think you've read.
The lawyer has to highlight the relevant articles and MAKE HIS CASE... as to why Portugal has failed.

Offline Mr Gray

t would only take you 2 seconds to type the name of the lawyers so I can google it.
You do know it don't you?
Yes I do... Its in the judgement you claim to have read..

You did read it didn't you?

Offline Icanhandlethetruth

Imo you are making an absolute foo
If you read the judgement it highlights exactly why the mccanns felt the SC judgement was unfair....its all there in the judgement you think you've read.
The lawyer has to highlight the relevant articles and MAKE HIS CASE... as to why Portugal has failed.

I am not a foo.
The rest of your post is irrelevant.
So how does he make his case, does he present to the judges in oral form?

Offline Mr Gray

I am not a foo.
The rest of your post is irrelevant.
So how does he make his case, does he present to the judges in oral form?

I would assume he has Microsoft Office and a PC.

Offline Icanhandlethetruth

Yes I do... Its in the judgement you claim to have read..

You did read it didn't you?

Yes I did read it. I will take a look

 Me R. Correia Afonso, lawyer in Lisbon.


Offline Icanhandlethetruth

I would assume he has Microsoft Office and a PC.

Nice website, very professional.30 year old firm.
But I can assure you the lawyers in ECHR cases only really file the applications and then written submissions for the court to consider. They can't swing a case one way or the other.
But if you still insist they lost because they hired bad lawyers go ahead.

Offline Mr Gray

Nice website, very professional.30 year old firm.
But I can assure you the lawyers in ECHR cases only really file the applications and then written submissions for the court to consider. They can't swing a case one way or the other.
But if you still insist they lost because they hired bad lawyers go ahead.

The written submission is extremely important.. His Cv

have been practicing law in this team since 2002 and I have a predilection for the areas of civil, criminal, constitutional and European law, administrative, urban planning, commercial and corporate law and registry and notary law.


20 years experience in all these area but not human rights.
Partner of... Duarte. I'm beginning to think the McCanns aren't too bright.

Do you think all these challenges to HRs by asylum seekers in the UK are made by lawyers of his experience..
Or do you think they employ lawyers with experience and a proven track record at the ECHR


Offline Icanhandlethetruth

The written submission is extremely important.. His Cv

have been practicing law in this team since 2002 and I have a predilection for the areas of civil, criminal, constitutional and European law, administrative, urban planning, commercial and corporate law and registry and notary law.


20 years experience in all these area but not human rights.
Partner of... Duarte. I'm beginning to think the McCanns aren't too bright.

Do you think all these challenges to HRs by asylum seekers in the UK are made by lawyers of his experience..
Or do you think they employ lawyers with experience and a proven track record at the ECHR

Yea I read that on his website.
my point is that after reading the judgement you still think the lawyers were inept whereas the judgement very clearly spells out the reasons that the judges reached their verdict.
It couldnít be clearer.

Offline Mr Gray

Yea I read that on his website.
my point is that after reading the judgement you still think the lawyers were inept whereas the judgement very clearly spells out the reasons that the judges reached their verdict.
It couldnít be clearer.

You made the mistake in that you first 0ost for months criticised my knowledge of the law... You then come out with the absurd notion that a specialist lawyer would have made no difference... It would be like needing a heart transplant and asking your GP to do it

Offline faithlilly

Long before?  It was about 4 months before as I recall.  How much longer do we have to wait before the McCanns are made arguidos again then? Or do you think the PJ are just happy to secretly suspect them forever whilst pretending to suspect the only offical suspect?

Your point appeared to be that CB was an arguido so the parents couldnít be suspects. Thatís patently untrue as Murat was an arguido while the parents were being investigated and before they were made arguidos. They length of time that that was the case is irrelevant.

Further I have no idea what the PJís strategy is but is it possible that the parents are still being investigated, until charges are brought against a named individual anything is possible. Lest we forget we were being told that the parents were not suspects when we now know that thatís exactly what they were.
Brietta posted on 10/04/2022 ďBut whether or not that is the reason behind the delay I am certain that Brueckner's trial is going to take place.Ē

Letís count the months, shall we?

Offline Icanhandlethetruth

You made the mistake in that you first 0ost for months criticised my knowledge of the law... You then come out with the absurd notion that a specialist lawyer would have made no difference... It would be like needing a heart transplant and asking your GP to do it

Well you have showed no knowledge of the law at all. Your default position on both of the subjects I have debated with you is the lawyers screwed up.
You are also making the assumption that the lawyers hired didn't hire outside expertise to aid with their submission.
Please reread the judgement and comprehend the 5 points the judges raise and it will become clear why the seven judges ruled the way they did and not the way you were convinced they would.
You got it wrong, very, very wrong.


Offline barrier

If you have any knowledge of the legal profession you would know that their website gives information on their areas of expertise. I didn't see anything about human rights.... So I think my valued judgement is adequately supported by facts.

I feel the McCanns may have been poorly advised.. I actually had reservations about the POI..... You would think that a competent lawyer who seems to have based his whole stratagy on the POI would have realised it could be considered inadmissible... Everything else then falls apart
Yet up to the very minute the judgement was released you could see no way would the verdict would go against the McCanns.


E unum pluribus


Offline barrier

Has it occurred to any of you that this really isn't all that important?
You are absolutely  right, it's history today's fish and chip wrappings.Madeleine who?.


E unum pluribus


Offline Vertigo Swirl

Nice website, very professional.30 year old firm.
But I can assure you the lawyers in ECHR cases only really file the applications and then written submissions for the court to consider. They can't swing a case one way or the other.
But if you still insist they lost because they hired bad lawyers go ahead.
So do you think these lawyers offered the McCanns no opinion on whether or not they stood a chance of winning the appeal?  That they knew (being experts on PT law like what you is) that the McCanns didnít stand a hope in hell of winning but went ahead and filed the application anyway?  Because if thatís what youíre suggesting then they obviously hired bad lawyers.  If, on the other hand, the lawyers advised them that, in their opinion, the Supreme Court had got it wrong and they stood a chance at the ECHR then, well, they were bad lawyers because they were too ignorant to see what experts like you and G-Unit could see.  So, yes, the McCanns lost because they hired bad lawyers. 
I no longer read nor reply to posts made by those posters I perceive to be WUMS and TROLLS so if you think I'm ignoring you this may be the reason.  Best wishes.