UK Justice Forum 🇬🇧
Disappeared and Abducted Children and Young Adults => Madeleine McCann (3) disappeared from her parent's holiday apartment at Ocean Club, Praia da Luz, Portugal on 3 May 2007. No trace of her has ever been found. => Topic started by: Wonderfulspam on September 20, 2022, 09:38:50 AM
-
Madeleine McCann’s parents lose challenge over Portuguese libel case
Couple sought redress from European court of human rights after libel case against detective was overturned
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/sep/20/madeleine-mccann-parents-lose-challenge-over-portuguese-libel-case
The McCanns will appeal.
It will be interesting to read the full judgement.
-
I did rather think this would be the outcome, oh well another blow for the McCanns, something for some people to rejoice at I guess.
-
There are more details in the Independent.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/madeleine-mccann-parents-portugal-detective-echr-b2170627.html#comments-area
-
Although the news isn't "earth shattering" it still came up as a BBC News alert on my phone, which I found an interesting indicator of the level of importance and interest this case attracts.
-
Thanks.
I see there is an appeal system. I didn't know that and thought the ECHR ruling was final.
Having been defeated yet again I wonder whether they'll bother.
I think it was inevitable they would win. His defence would be he wrote a book based on the investigation which he had tools and access to. The mccanns would of had to sue the investigation and win in order to prove he was wrong or lying.
-
I think it was inevitable they would win. His defence would be he wrote a book based on the investigation which he had tools and access to. The mccanns would of had to sue the investigation and win in order to prove he was wrong or lying.
They lost or are you referring to the State of Portugal ?
-
I think it was inevitable they would win. His defence would be he wrote a book based on the investigation which he had tools and access to. The mccanns would of had to sue the investigation and win in order to prove he was wrong or lying.
The concrete evidence against Brueckner proves the investigation was wrong already.
-
Full judgement pdf in English...
-
They lost or are you referring to the State of Portugal ?
The mccanns have lost against their echr claim that portugal the country were wrong. However what i am saying is amaral wrote books aftwrwards and made claims with no proof. But it was overturned twice. I feel if the mccanns were to win the case they would of had to of proved in portugal they the investigators, the state had lied.
-
8((()*/Here it is in full:
CASE OF MCCANN AND HEALY v. PORTUGAL
(Application No. 57195/17 )
Art 8 • Positive obligations • Private life • Dismissal of the civil action of the applicants accused of the crime against their missing daughter by a former police officer in charge of the high-profile investigation dismissed for lack of evidence • Matter of public interest • Applicants, having exposed themselves to the media, entered the public sphere • Value judgments based on a sufficient factual basis • Widely debated media affair before public access to the investigation and the publication of the book • Lack of serious repercussions of the assertions of the police on the applicants • Detailed balancing of the interests at stake in compliance with the Court's case-law
STRASBOURG
September 20, 2022
This judgment will become final under the conditions defined in Article 44 § 2 of the Convention. It may undergo shape alterations.
In McCann and Healy v. Portugal,
The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of :
Gabriele Kucsko-Stadlmayer, President ,
Tim Eicke,
Yonko Grozev,
Armen Harutyunyan,
Father Pastor Vilanova,
Jolien Schukking,
Ana Maria Guerra Martins, Judges,
and de Ilse Freiwirth, Deputy Section Registrar ,
Seen :
the application (no . 57195/17 ) brought against the Portuguese Republic and brought before the Court by two British nationals, Mr Gerald Patrick McCann and Ms Kate Marie Healy (“ the applicants ”) under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“ the Convention ”) on July 28, 2017,
the decision to bring the application to the attention of the Portuguese government (“ the Government ”),
the observations of the parties,
noting that, having been informed of its right to take part in the proceedings (Article 36 § 1 of the Convention), the British government did not wish to avail itself of it,
After deliberating in chambers on August 30, 2022,
Delivers the following judgment, adopted on this date :
INTRODUCTION
1. The application concerns statements made by Mr. Gonçalo Amaral (hereinafter " GA "), a former judicial police inspector, in a book, in the documentary adapted from it and in an interview with a newspaper in subject of the applicants' alleged involvement in the disappearance of their daughter, which occurred on 3 May 2007 in the south of Portugal. Relying on Articles 6 §§ 1 and 2, 8 and 10 § 2 of the Convention, the applicants alleged that these statements damaged their reputation, their credit and their right to the presumption of innocence. They further argue that the reasoning contained in the Supreme Court decisions rendered on January 31 and March 21, 2017 in their civil liability action also violated their right to the presumption of innocence.
ACTUALLY
2. The applicants were born in 1968 and live in Leicestershire, United Kingdom. They were represented by M e R. Correia Afonso, lawyer in Lisbon.
3. The Portuguese Government (“ the Government ”) were represented by their Agent, Ms MF da Graça Carvalho, Deputy Prosecutor General.
* THE GENESIS OF THE CASE
* The disappearance of Madeleine McCann and the investigation opened into this disappearance
4. At the material time, the applicants were on holiday with their three children at the Ocean Club, a hotel complex located by the sea in the village of Praia da Luz, in southern Portugal.
5. On the night of May 3, 2007, Madeleine, their three-year-old daughter, disappeared when she was supposed to be sleeping in the apartment occupied by the family.
6. Around 10 p.m. the applicants called the police, stating that their daughter had been abducted. A search was immediately launched around the perimeter of the hotel.
7. The following day, the public prosecutor's office near the court of Portimão opened an investigation by directing the research on the trail of the abduction.
8 . The investigation was entrusted to Inspector Gonçalo Amaral (“ GA ”), of the Judicial Police (“ PJ ”) of Portimão. From the outset, it had a major media impact, both nationally and internationally.
9. A national of British origin was charged. The suspicions against him were not confirmed, and his indictment was therefore lifted.
10 . Biological and blood traces were detected by British police dogs inside the holiday apartment and in the boot of the vehicle which the applicants had rented a few days after their daughter's disappearance (see paragraph 40 below). Consequently, on 7 September 2007 the applicants were charged ( constituídos arguidos ). They were suspected of hiding their daughter's body after she possibly died in a domestic accident in the flat and of faking a kidnapping. The indictment of the applicants received unprecedented national and international media coverage.
11. On 9 September 2007 the family returned to the United Kingdom.
12. On September 10, 2007, TA, chief inspector of the PJ, drew up a report. In it, he took stock of the investigation, concluding in the relevant parts of the case as follows :
“ (...) according to what has been established, Madeleine would have died on the night of May 3, 2007 inside the apartment (...) occupied by the McCann couple and their three children (.. .).
(...)
B) There was a simulation of abduction ;
C) To make impossible the hypothesis of a death of the child which would have occurred before 22:00, one invented the existence of a plan supposed to organize the surveillance of the children of the McCann couple during their sleep ;
D) Kate McCann and Gerald McCann are involved in the concealment of the body ( ocultação de cadáver ) of their daughter Madeleine McCann ;
E) For the moment, there does not yet seem to be any clues that would show that the death of the child did not occur as a result of a tragic accident ;
F) from what could be established, everything indicates that, in the interest of their defence, the McCann couple do not wish to hand over the body immediately and voluntarily ; it is very likely that it was moved from the original place where it was deposited (...) ”.
13 . In his report, Inspector TA asked the public prosecutor's office to have the applicants heard again and possibly subject to a measure of constraint.
14 . On October 2, 2007, GA was removed from the investigation after making controversial statements to the press.
15 . He retired on July 1 , 2008.
* The classification without follow-up of the investigation
16 . On 21 July 2008 the public prosecutor's office issued a decision to discontinue the investigation ( arquivamento do inquérito ) pursuant to Article 277 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (“ CPP ”) (see paragraph 61 below). It concluded, as follows, in its relevant parts in this case :
" (...)
Since some of the points put forward by the accused and by the witnesses seemed to present some contradictions (...) it was decided to proceed to a reconstruction of the facts (...) in order to duly clarify the following details on the scene of the facts , which are extremely important :
(...)
4. What happened between 6:45 p.m. and 7:00 p.m. (...) and the time at which the abduction was reported, that is around 10:00 p.m .;
5. (...) form the firmest possible conviction about what [JT] and the other intervenors witnessed and, eventually, dispel once and for all any lingering doubt about the innocence of the parents of the disappeared.
To this end, (...) the appearance of witnesses was requested (...).
However, although the national authorities have taken all steps to facilitate their movement to Portugal, for reasons that we do not know, after numerous explanations were given to them concerning the necessity and the advisability of their movement, they chose not to appear. Also, the [reconstruction of the facts] could not take place.
For us, this has mainly prejudiced the McCann defendants. They have indeed lost the possibility of proving all that they have advanced since they were indicted, that is to say their innocence in the face of the fateful event ; the investigation was also hampered because these facts could not be clarified (...).
While the disappearance of M. from apartment no . 5 of the Ocean Club is indisputable, this is not the case either with the modus operandi or the circumstances in which it occurred, despite all the measures taken to elucidate them (...).
... the homicide remains a hypothesis since it has not been established by the evidence.
The non-involvement of the defendants, M.'s parents, in any criminal offense seems to stem from objective circumstances, in particular the fact that they were not in the apartment at the time of his disappearance, as well as their behavior, which been normal until and after this disappearance, as follows from the statements made by the witnesses heard, from the analysis of the telephone calls and also from the conclusions of the scientific expert reports, in particular from the Forensic Science Service and the Institute of forensic medecine.
(...)
Even assuming that Gerald and Kate McCann could have been responsible for the death of the child, it remains to be explained how, by where, when and with what means, with whose help and in what place they got rid of the body in the limited amount of time they would have had to do so. To this must be added that their daily routine until May 3 was limited to the perimeter of the Ocean Club and the adjacent beach, that they did not know the surroundings and that they had no friends or acquaintances in Portugal, in addition to the English friends with whom they had traveled (...).
Examinations and analyzes were carried out by two of the most prestigious institutions, which have been accredited for this purpose, the Institute of Forensic Medicine and the British Forensic Science Service laboratory. The final results [do not confirm] ( valorizam positivamente ) the elements collected and do not corroborate the sightings made by the dogs [of the British police].
(...)
No evidence has been obtained which would enable an ordinary man, in the light of criteria of common sense, normality and the general rules of experience, to formulate a lucid, clear, serious and honest conclusion on the circumstances in which the child was taken from the apartment, to state a coherent prognosis and, this is the most dramatic, to determine whether she is alive or dead, the latter hypothesis seeming the most probable. (...) Thus, all things considered and examined, as we have just explained, we order the dismissal of the case concerning [the applicants] since there is no element indicating that they would have committed some offence. »
17 . On the same day, the public prosecutor's office issued an information note to the media explaining that the investigation had been closed without further action but that it could be reopened at any time, ex officio or at the request of any interested party if new pieces of evidence were uncovered and made it possible to launch serious and relevant investigative measures. A digital copy of the investigation file, from which the confidential elements had been removed, was created in order to be made available to any interested person. It appears from the file that the content of this file was disclosed in the press and that it gave rise to numerous debates.
18. The circumstances of Madeleine's disappearance have still not been elucidated to this day, as she remains untraceable.
* THE PUBLICATION AND LAUNCH OF THE BOOK “ MADDIE : A VERDADE DA MENTIRA ” (“ MADDIE, THE TRUTH OF THE LIE ”) AND THE ADAPTATION OF THE BOOK INTO A DOCUMENTARY
* The publication of the book
19 . On July 24, 2008, GA published a book about the case entitled “ Maddie : a verdade da mentira ” (“ Maddie, the truth of the lie ”). This book was published by Guerra e Paz (" GP "). On the cover was affixed the mention “ confidential ” and on the back cover appeared the mentions “ restricted reading ” and “ contains unique revelations ”.
20 . In this work, GA recounted the investigation he had led into the disappearance of Madeleine until he was dismissed, punctuating the story with personal reflections on his work as an investigator, his colleagues, the Algarve and his family.
21 . The foreword to the book reads as follows: [1] :
" Of course, this book responds to the need I felt to defend myself, having been discredited without the institution for which I worked for more than twenty-six years having allowed me to explain myself, either publicly or even within it. I had however formulated this request several times, but it was never heard. I therefore scrupulously respected the rules of the judicial police and refrained from making any comments. But that was not self- evident: I lived this silence to which I was forced as an attack on my dignity. Then I was removed from the investigation. That's when I realized it was time to talk. To do this, I asked for my early retirement, in order to be able to express myself freely.
However, the purpose of this book is more important : to contribute to the discovery of the truth so that justice is finally done in the investigation known as the “ Maddie affair ”. Truth and justice are two values deeply anchored in me which reflect my deep convictions : they have never ceased to guide my work within the institution to which I am proud to have belonged. Even in retirement, they will continue to inspire me and be present in my life.
In no way does this text seek to call into question the work of my colleagues in the judicial police or to compromise the ongoing investigation. I am convinced that the revelation of all the facts could, in the present case, harm the continuation of the investigations. However, the reader will have access to new information, to new interpretations of the facts – always in compliance with the law – and, of course, to relevant questions.
The sole purpose of a criminal investigation is the search for the truth. “ Political correctness ” has no place there. »
22 . The conclusion of the book reads as follows: [2] :
“ It is important to deliver now, on the basis of our deductions, a summary of this case. Reject what is false, remove what cannot be demonstrated with sufficient certainty and validate what has been proven.
1. The abduction thesis is defended from the beginning by Maddie's parents.
2. In their group, only the McCanns claim to have seen the bedroom window open. The others cannot confirm this since they arrived in the apartment after the alert was given.
3. The only person to have seen this window open with the blinds up is Amy, one of the daycare workers at the Ocean Club. She made this observation around 10:20 p.m. / 10:30 p.m., that is to say well after the alert – which does not exclude that the window could have been closed at the time of the criminal action.
4. Testimonies and depositions reveal a large number of inaccuracies, inconsistencies and contradictions. The testimony of [JT] in favor of the thesis of the abduction is probably false : moreover, it gradually lost all its credibility because of the successive modifications made by [JT], modifications which ended up invalidating it. .
5. The body, whose existence was confirmed by the EVRD and CSI dogs but also by the preliminary results of the laboratory analyses, could not be found.
The conclusions that my team and I have reached are as follows :
1. Underage Madeleine McCann died inside Apartment 5-A of the Ocean Club in Vila da Luz on the night of May 3, 2007 ;
2. There was a mock abduction ;
3. Kate Healy and Gerald MacCann are likely involved in hiding their daughter's body ;
4. Death may have occurred following a tragic accident ;
5. There is evidence of parental negligence regarding child care and safety.
(...) We gave the best of ourselves to solve this case. Our conclusions are based on proven facts and indices interpreted with regard to the law. Our job has been to work for justice based on material truth, the only one that must prevail in a universe where lies are erected into truth. »
* The interview given to the daily newspaper Correio da Manhã
23 . On July 24, 2008, when the book was launched, it was sold with the edition of the same day of the tabloid daily Correio da Manhã, which also published an interview given to it by the author and in which the latter reiterated the thesis defended in his book. The relevant passages from this interview are as follows :
" (...)
-
Correio da Manhã : which thesis do you favor as an investigator in the case ?
GA : The little girl died in the apartment. Everything is in the book, which faithfully recounts the investigation up to September : it reflects the opinion of the Portuguese and British police as well as that of the prosecution. For us, until that moment, everything was proven : the concealment of the body, the simulation of an abduction and the endangerment of the life of others.
Correio da Manhã : what led you to suspect the McCanns of all these crimes ?
GA : It all starts with an abduction theory constructed by the parents. And the abduction is based on two elements : one is the testimony given by [JT], who says he saw a man walk past the apartment with a child in his arms, the other is the open window while it had to be closed. It has been proven that none of this happened.
Correio da Manhã : how has this been proven?
GA: [JT] is not credible : it identifies and recognizes different people (...).
(...)
Correio da Manhã : did we fail to reconstruct the facts ?
GA : It was not carried out ten or fifteen days after the events because the village was full of tourists and journalists. We were sure we could do it later. But that was not possible.
Correio da Manhã : the theory of the abduction being invalidated, how does one construct the thesis of death ?
GA : With the elements that existed, we could only end up with an accident, natural death, any cause not involving the intervention of a third party. We were consolidating evidence and moving forward to understand what might have happened to the little girl's body.
Also taking into account the information from the British laboratory on the traces found inside the McCanns' car.
(...)
Correio da Manhã : What do you think happened to [the child's] body ?
GA : Everything indicated that the body, after being in a specific place, had been moved from one car to another, twenty and some days later. Given the traces found in the car, the little girl had to be transported there.
(...)
Correio da Manhã : did you feel any political pressure during the investigation ?
GA : Inhibition. One of our mistakes was not having moved forward with this group, with everything that was at our disposal: tapping, monitoring. It would have been necessary to recover the clothes that the little girl wore when she left the kindergarten to go home. But there we thought : if we do it, we will say that we suspect the parents. This inhibition was present all the time.
Correio da Manhã : and that led you to the abduction.
GA : We first had to prove that there had not been an abduction to then focus on these people.
Correio da Manhã : how does the pressure manifest itself ?
Immediately on May 4, in the morning, with a call from the consul saying that the PJ was doing nothing. After an ambassador. Then an assessor ( assessor ) and an English Prime Minister.
(...) »
* The adaptation of the book into a documentary and its distribution
24 . The book was adapted into a documentary with the same title. It was produced by the production company Valentim de Carvalho (" VC ") and released in DVD format from the end of April 2009.
25 . The first part of the documentary aired on TVI channel on April 13, 2009. The second part aired on May 12 , 2009. Prior to the airing of the documentary, TVI channel released the following statement :
“ The following program is a documentary based on the book by Gonçalo Amaral, ex-PJ inspector who investigated the disappearance of Madeleine in the Algarve. His version of events is dismissed by Maddie's parents, who continue to say it is a kidnapping case.
The criminal procedure conducted by the Portuguese authorities ended with a discontinuation of the investigation, a decision contested by Gonçalo Amaral.
The broadcast of this documentary does not claim to designate those responsible, this task being the responsibility of justice, but seeks to shed light on a case that has remained a mystery for more than two years, and to provide elements to allow public opinion public to understand it. »
26. In this documentary, GA appeared as the narrator. He reiterated the thesis defended in his book, opening the documentary with the following introduction:
“ My name is Gonçalo Amaral, I was a judicial police investigator for 27 years. I coordinated the investigation into the disappearance of Madeleine McCann which occurred on May 3 , 2007. For the next 50 minutes, I will prove that the child was not abducted and that she died in the vacation apartment from Praia da Luz. Find out the whole truth about what happened that day. A death that many people want to hide. »
27 . He concluded the documentary thus :
" From what I know, Madeleine McCann died in apartment 5-A on May 3, 2007. I'm sure the truth about what happened (that Madeleine died in the apartment) will be one day revealed. The investigation was abruptly interrupted and there was a political and hasty classification without any follow-up. There are people who hide the truth but sooner or later the veneer will crack and the revelations will arise. Justice will then be done to [M.] (...) ”.
28. The DVD was sold with the April 24, 2009 edition of the Correio da Manhã newspaper .
* THE CIVIL PROCEEDINGS BROUGHT BY THE APPLICANTS
* Requests for precautionary measures ( medidas cautelares )
1. The request for precautionary measures to ban books and documentaries
29 . On an unspecified date in May 2009, the applicants, on their own behalf and on behalf of their children, lodged an application with the Lisbon Court against GA and the GP editions, the VC company and the television channel TVI, with a view to the application of precautionary measures ( medidas cautelares ), demanding the immediate withdrawal from points of sale of GA's book and the documentary sold in DVD format, the prohibition of any reprinting or reproduction, the prohibition of any assignment of author on the book or documentary, as well as the prohibition of any dissemination of opinions, interviews or any other publication or video defending the thesis supported by GA in his book.
30. In a judgment of 18 February 2010, the Lisbon court granted the applicants' request.
31. The defendants appealed against the judgment.
32 . In a judgment of October 14, 2010, the Lisbon Court of Appeal quashed the judgment of the Lisbon Court of February 18, 2010. It found that GA's book revealed the author's opinion about the investigation by relating the facts that appeared in the investigation file and without bringing any new elements. It held that the applicants could not invoke a breach of their right to respect for private life since, admittedly for the legitimate purpose of finding their daughter, they had exposed the case in the public square, thus opening the way to expression of opinions and criticisms.
2. The request for precautionary measures for the seizure of GA's property
33. On an unspecified date, on their own behalf and on behalf of their children, the applicants requested the Lisbon Court to order the provisional seizure ( arresto ) of any profit made by GA on the sale of the book, DVD or on any transfer of rights as well as the seizure of GA's bank accounts, of his shares in a company, of one third of his salary as manager of this company and of one third of his pension for the purpose of guaranteeing the payment of the compensation they were going to claim in the context of a civil liability action brought against GA for damage to their credit and reputation within the meaning of Article 484 of the Civil Code.
34. In a judgment of 16 October 2009, the Lisbon court granted the applicants' request. The parties did not indicate whether GA appealed the judgment and, if so, what the outcome of that appeal was.
-
* Civil actions
1. The introduction of actions and their joining
35 . On 24 July 2009 the applicants, on their own behalf and on behalf of their children, sued GA, the companies GP and VC and the TVI channel before the Lisbon court in the context of a civil liability action. They claimed 1,200,000 EUR in damages in compensation for the damage to their reputation and their credit ( bom nome ) which, according to them, resulted from the allusions made to them by GA in his book, in the documentary which was the subject of it. adaptation and in the interview given to the daily Correio da Manhã (see paragraphs 19, 23 and 24 above).
36 . On October 6, 2009, they also brought a civil action against the same defendants before the Lisbon court with a view to the definitive application of the measures they had requested on a provisional basis in order to obtain, in particular, the banning of the disputed book and documentary ( paragraph 29 above).
37. The defendants challenged the actions brought against them.
38 . By a decision of the Lisbon Court of July 12, 2010, the two civil actions were joined.
2. The judgment of the Lisbon court of April 27, 2015
39. In a judgment of 27 April 2015, ruling as a single judge, the Lisbon Court partially upheld the claims filed by the applicants on their behalf (see paragraphs 35-36 above) and dismissed all the claims they filed on behalf of their children. The court ordered GA to pay each of the applicants compensation in the amount of EUR 250,000 plus interest, pursuant to Article 484 of the Civil Code (“ CC ”) (see paragraph 65 below), judging that the book of which he was the author, his adaptation into a documentary and the statements he made during the interview he gave to the daily newspaper Correio da Manhã on 24 July 2008 (see paragraphs 19, 23 and 24 above) had damaged the credit and reputation of the applicants. The court also prohibited the sale of the book and the documentary.
40 . With regard to the facts, referring to the evidence that had been submitted by the parties, the Lisbon court found the following established :
" (...)
6. British Police dogs ' Eddie ' and ' Keela ' detected scent marks of human blood and corpse inside Ocean Club Apartment 5-A.
7. British police dogs ' Eddie ' and ' Keela ' detected odor marks of human blood and cadaver inside the vehicle rented by the applicants ... after Madeleine disappeared.
(...)
28. The book was published, by other publishers, in the following countries : in Spain, in September 2008 with possible marketing in Spanish in Latin American countries ; in Denmark, in November 2008, with possible marketing in the Nordic countries ; in Italy, in December 2008, with marketing in Italian worldwide ; in the Netherlands, in April 2009, with worldwide marketing in Dutch; in France, in May 2009, with worldwide marketing in French ; in Germany in June 2009, with marketing in Austria and Switzerland.
(...)
33. The defendant [GA] received from the sale of the book ..., in 2008 and 2009, the sum of 342,111.86 euros.
(...)
53. 75,000 copies of the DVD were released.
54. 63,369 copies remained unsold and were later destroyed.
(...)
62. The defendant [GA] received, in 2008, 40,000 euros from the sale of the DVD.
(...)
67. The applicants ... reported the disappearance of their daughter to the press.
68. The applicants ... gave an interview to the American television program " Oprah ", presented by Oprah Winfrey, during which they discussed new testimonies, reconstructions and composite portraits.
69. The Oprah interview was broadcast worldwide (...).
70. The interview (...) was broadcast in Portugal on the SIC channel on 9 and 12 May 2009.
71. The applicants (...), in collaboration with the British television channel “ Channel 4 ”, produced a documentary on the disappearance of their daughter, entitled “ Still missing Madeleine ”, lasting 60 minutes.
(...)
74. The documentary (...) was broadcast on the SIC television channel on 12 May 2009.
(...)
76. In Portugal and throughout the world, the disappearance of Madeleine McCann, the investigation carried out to find her and to elucidate the facts, its evolution and its vicissitudes, such as the indictment of the applicants (...) or the relinquishment of the defendant [GA] of the investigations undertaken under his coordination, aroused enormous public interest.
77. The plaintiffs (...) appealed, through the Madeleine Fund [3] , communication companies and spokespersons.
(...)
80. The facts relating to the criminal investigation into the disappearance of Madeleine McCann to which the defendant [GA] refers in the book, in the interview with the daily newspaper Correio da Manhã and in the documentary are, for the most part, events that occurred and were documented in this investigation.
81. Faced with the statements made by the defendant [GA] in his book, in his documentary and in his interview with the daily newspaper Correio da Manhã , the plaintiffs felt anger, despair, anguish and concern ; they suffered from insomnia and lost their appetite.
82. They feel ill at ease knowing that they are considered, by those who believe in defendant [GA]'s case, (...), to be responsible for the concealment of the body [of their daughter] and like those who faked her kidnapping. »
41 . On the merits, the court observed that it was called upon to rule on a conflict between the applicants' right to protection of their credit and reputation, on the one hand, and GA's right to freedom of expression. under the aspect of freedom of opinion, on the other hand, noting that these rights were respectively guaranteed by Articles 8 and 10 of the Convention. He noted that the case also raised the question of the presumption of innocence which was guaranteed by Article 6 § 2 of the Convention and was closely linked to the reputation of the applicants. According to the court, these rights deserved equal protection. He observed that the Court's case law nevertheless seemed to uphold freedom of expression and freedom of the press, accepting few restrictions when it came to matters of public interest. In this regard, he cited in particular the Thoma v. Luxembourg (no . 38432/97 , ECHR 2001-III) and Palomo Sánchez and others v. Spain ([GC], nos . 28955/06 and 3 others, ECHR 2011). Regarding the presumption of innocence, the court noted that Allen v. United Kingdom ([GC], no . 25424/09 , ECHR 2013) had underlined its importance after an acquittal or the discontinuance of proceedings.
42 . The court considered that, in the present case, GA's right to freedom of expression had to give way to the rights of the applicants. For that, he based himself on the fact that GA was not a simple commentator of miscellaneous facts but that he had precisely directed the criminal investigation which had been carried out against the applicants. He considered that, even though he had been retired since July 1 , 2008, GA was therefore bound by a duty of confidentiality and professional secrecy ( dever de sigilo ) in the light of Article 12 of the Organic Law on the Judicial Police and Article 74 § 1 of the Statute of Retired Civil Service Agents (see paragraphs 66-67 below). He concludes from this that his conduct was unlawful under Article 483 CC (see paragraph 65 below).
-
3. The appeals filed by the defendants and the judgment of the Lisbon Court of Appeal of April 14, 2016
43. GA, the GP editions and the VC company appealed against the judgment to the Lisbon Court of Appeal. In their briefs on appeal, they all argued that the judgment of the Lisbon court infringed freedom of expression.
44 . In a judgment of April 14, 2016, ruling in a panel of three judges, the Lisbon Court of Appeal quashed the judgment of the Lisbon Court. In its judgment, it considered that GA's right to freedom of expression and opinion prevailed in the present case over the applicants' rights. In its relevant parts in this case, its reasoning read as follows :
" ... the thesis that the child died as a result of an accident and this accident was concealed by the parents who disseminated, to elude it, the hypothesis of an abduction, is not not a novelty. Indeed, this thesis also appears in the report [of the PJ of September 10, 2007] which determined the indictment [of the applicants]. However, with the availability of the copy of the investigation report, [this thesis] was made public by the media (...).
As understood in the judgment rendered by this Section in the context of the proceedings relating to the interim measure attached to this file (...), given that the institution to which he was linked did not enabled the Appellant to respond to the attacks made on his talent and his reputation in his capacity as an agent of the judicial police, it must be considered that the publication of the book in question, in which the author set out his view of the facts, bears witness to legitimate exercise of freedom of opinion by the person concerned.
Moreover, it appears from the facts that have been established that ... it was the [applicants] themselves who ... increased the number of interviews and appearances in national and international press organs. Thus, it is they themselves who have restricted their right to respect for their private life.
Therefore, by acting as they did, they allowed everyone to form their own opinion on the case, which contradicts their thesis (...).
Furthermore, it is not clear how the right of the [applicants] to benefit after their indictment from procedural safeguards – including the right to a fair investigation and the right to liberty – could have been affected by the content of a book which, essentially, describes and interprets the facts appearing in the file of the investigation and whose content has been made public.
Even if it has been decided that the facts were not sufficient to lead to an indictment, it is not prohibited for these same facts to be the subject of a different assessment, in particular in the context of a literary work. .
Thus (...) we consider that the publication in question is lawful. »
45 . With regard to the duty of confidentiality to which, according to the Lisbon Court, GA was bound, the Lisbon Court of Appeal concludes its judgment as follows :
“ ... regardless of the reasons invoked by the Appellant to justify the publication, it is difficult to understand how a civil servant, who is moreover retired, could remain bound by the duty of discretion and the duty to maintain the secrecy of the instruction, which would restrict his freedom of opinion, with respect to the interpretation of facts which have already been made public by the judicial authority and which have already been amply debated (moreover, to a large extent, at the initiative of the [applicants] themselves) in national and international press organs.
(...) ”.
4. The appeal in cassation filed by the applicants and the judgments of the Supreme Court
has) The appeal in cassation of the applicants
46. The applicants appealed on points of law. In their appeal, they repeated that the book, the documentary and the statements made by GA in the context of the interview he had given to the daily Correio da Manhã had damaged their reputation, their credit, their image and their right to the presumption of innocence. In addition, they maintained that GA made no reference to the dismissal of the case at the internal level, which, according to them, called into question the work of justice.
47 . The applicants argued that all the actions they had taken to find their daughter were legitimate and that this fact could not be held against them. On this point, the relevant parts of their appeal in this case read as follows :
" (...)
d. In addition, the honor, credit and image of any innocent and declared innocent citizen are tarnished by communication media that intend, and succeed, not to respect and thus weaken a decision rendered by state magistrates. , sole holders of the penal action, by representing the targeted citizen as a suspect of having committed crimes (...)
(...)
I. In Portugal, in view of the Constitution, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the European Convention on Human Rights and the Convention on the Rights of the Child, it is not permitted to write, disseminate by all means and comment with all possible nuances, a thesis that incriminates innocent citizens and who have never been accused of the crimes it exposes. It is therefore not up to the State and the courts to protect those who act in this way, but to protect the victims of such attacks.
Mr. Precisely because they are not only absolutely innocent but also because they have the right to benefit from the presumption of innocence by acting and behaving like any citizen who has not been indicted, all that the parents of a missing child do, legally, for themselves, to find their daughter or to find out on her behalf what has happened to her, should be welcomed by Portugal not as a voluntary restriction of their rights personal fundamentals of parents, but as an activity protected by domestic and international law in which cannot fall within the admissible criticism of this behavior, the affirmation and dissemination urbi et orbi of the thesis proclaimed by the defendants on appeal ( recorridos ) .
(...) »
b) The judgment of the Supreme Court of January 31, 2017
48 . In a judgment of January 31, 2017, the Supreme Court upheld the judgment of the Lisbon Court of Appeal. In its judgment, the Supreme Court considered that the central question in this case was how to resolve the conflict between the right to freedom of expression, freedom to inform and freedom of the press in the of GA and the companies GP and VC, on the one hand, and the right to protection of the reputation and credit of the claimants, on the other hand. Taking into account the case law of the Court,
49 . The Supreme Court recalled the Court's case law on freedom of expression and stressed that it was up to the national judge to interpret and apply the Convention and that it was important for national judges to follow the inter- judiciary with rigor. In particular, it considered the following :
“ ...we note that the ECHR tends to resolve questions relating to interferences with freedom of expression taking into account their exceptional character and the central importance of this freedom in a democratic society. On the other hand, at the level of the national jurisdictions, there is a tendency to relegate freedom of expression to second place by giving precedence to the right to honour.
This is what has earned Portugal certain convictions by the ECHR for violation of Article 10 of the Convention (see for example the cases of Lopes Gomes da Silva v. Portugal (2000), Urbino Rodrigues v. Portugal (2005), Roseiro Bento v. Portugal (2005), Almeida Azevedo v. Portugal (2008), Medipress-Sociedade Jornalistica, Lda v. Portugal (2016) and Tavares de Almeida Fernandes e Almeida Fernandes v. Portugal (2017).
It should be noted, in this respect, that in the event of a conviction of the Portuguese State for violation of the ECHR, an appeal for review may be brought for the purposes of reviewing the decision in question (...). »
50 . The Supreme Court challenged the judgment of the Lisbon court insofar as it had settled the conflict of interests which was at stake on the basis of the applicants' right to the presumption of innocence and the right of discretion to which GA was bound ( paragraphs 41-42 above), and she gave several reasons. Firstly, the contentious assertions made by GA were not new since they were exposed in the PJ report of September 10 , 2007 which appeared in the investigation file, to which the press had had access. ; these assertions, which had thus already been widely commented on and debated, therefore constituted a subject of general interest. Secondly, the applicants, who had deliberately exposed themselves in the media, had to be considered as “ public persons ”, who were therefore inevitably subject to closer scrutiny of their behavior and opinions. In this regard, the judgment of the Supreme Court, in its relevant parts in this case, read as follows :
“ ... it can be said, in the present case, that we are in a case which concerns persons of a certain public character given that the appellants intervene publicly to influence a debate of public interest (... ).
They are also people who have voluntarily become public figures and who have agreed to bear the vulnerability that comes with an exhibition in the public square, as a consequence of the role they have sought to take on in the public debate in which they decided to intervene.
Furthermore, as stated in the judgment under appeal and as follows from the facts that have been established, it was the Appellants themselves who, because they had easy access to them, multiplied the interviews and interventions in national and international media outlets. They thus offered everyone the opportunity to form their own opinion on the case, which contradicts their thesis.
(...)
-
As I predicted many moons ago, Goncalo Amaral never defamed the McCanns or damaged their reputation, they managed that all on their own by their acts of defiance against the Portuguese Police.
Anyone seen Davel?
-
As we have already indicated, the ECHR has moved towards stronger protection of freedom of expression when the person targeted by imputations of facts or value judgments is a public person and the question concerns a subject of public interest.
When the targeted person is a public person and not a private individual, he is inevitably and consciously more exposed to more careful surveillance of his actions and opinions, both by journalists and by citizens as a whole ; it must therefore show greater tolerance with regard to this control.
This is all the more true when it is the person concerned who makes public statements likely to be criticized.
This does not mean that the public person is not entitled to the protection of his reputation, even outside his private life.
(...) »
51 . Referring to Oberschlick v. Austria ( (no . 1) , 23 May 1991, Series A no. 204 ), the Supreme Court observed that it had to be determined whether the disputed assertions constituted value judgments or assertions of fact. It considered that in the present case GA was expressing his opinion on the subject of the child's disappearance on the basis of the elements which had been collected during the investigation. On this point the judgment, in its relevant parts in the present case, was worded as follows :
“ (...) the value judgment and the logical-deductive reasoning that he develops throughout his book lead [GA] to conclude that the child – who has been the victim of negligence on the part of his parents (...) – died accidentally inside the apartment where she was staying, when a kidnapping was faked and the body was hidden.
Pursuing his logical reasoning, [GA] undermines the elements likely to support the thesis according to which Madeleine was kidnapped.
Such conclusions were later reproduced by [GA] in the documentary and interview mentioned below (...).
There is no doubt that [GA] was, until 2 October 2007, the judicial police inspector responsible for coordinating the investigation into the disappearance of Madeleine McCann (...). He therefore knew in great detail the clues and evidence that had been collected and the investigative measures that had been undertaken up to that date.
Also, it is not surprising that the facts relating to this investigation exposed in the book, the interview and the documentary are mainly facts which occurred and which are documented in this investigation.
(...)
At a certain moment the thesis defended by [GA] was adopted by the authority constitutionally responsible for directing the criminal investigation.
Moreover, the [applicants] were indicted in the context of this criminal investigation (...).
It is true that the investigation was subsequently dismissed, given that the suspicions which had led to their indictment could not be confirmed (...).
However, even the dismissal decision expresses serious reservations as to the likelihood of Madeleine's abduction, given the doubts raised by the versions given by [JT] and by Kate McCann.
These are doubts that we also sought to clarify in the context of the investigation by means of a reconstruction of the facts which could not however take place because the witnesses did not appear.
(...) »
52 . The Supreme Court also observed that in the foreword to his book GA (paragraph 21 above) explained that his intention was to clear his honour, which he felt had been smeared, and to contribute to a debate of interest public and the proper administration of justice. Taking into account the circumstances of the case, it held that the disputed book, documentary and interview did not bear witness to any defamatory intention against the applicants and that the opinion expressed by GA was based on a logical assessment of the facts and evidence collected during the investigation.
53 . As regards the alleged violation of the presumption of innocence on account of the disputed assertions, referring to the Konstas v. Greece (no . 53466/07 , 24 May 2011), the Supreme Court recalled that judicial issues could be the subject of public debate, the public authorities having however to exercise restraint in this regard. Citing Allen v. United Kingdom ([GC], no . 25424/09 , ECHR 2013), it observed that the presumption of innocence could imply that, beyond the criminal procedure, the judicial authorities seized in the context of subsequent proceedings respect a decision of acquittal or a decision to dismiss having been rendered. It considered that in the present case, the question which arose did not concern the criminal liability of the applicants but the civil liability of the defendants on appeal for having developed and disclosed a thesis concerning the disappearance of the child. According to the Supreme Court, the dismissal of the action could not therefore be interpreted as a finding of guilt on the part of the applicants. On this point she referred to the Del Latte v. the Netherlands (no . 44760/98 , 9 November 2004) and Cheema v. Belgium (no . 60056/08 , 9 February 2016).
54 . The Supreme Court also considered that the criminal investigation had been abandoned for lack of conclusive evidence, which in its view justified even less the restriction of freedom of expression in the case. On this point, in its relevant parts in the present case, the judgment of the Supreme Court read as follows :
" (...)
We are faced with a classification decision without follow-up by the public prosecutor's office which can be modified by various means.
(...)
This is also specified in the note sent to the media by the office of the Attorney General of the Republic on July 21, 2008 (...).
Consequently, given that the decision to close the investigation without further action is not a judicial decision in the strict sense and that it is not final, it would be even less justified to invoke the principle of the presumption of innocence to restrict freedom of expression.
(...)
And let it not be said that the appellants were exonerated ( inocentados ) by the decision to close the criminal investigation without further action.
In this case, it is not because the public prosecutor's office was convinced that the appellants had not committed a criminal offense that this decision was rendered (see article 277 § 1 of the CCP).
This dismissal, in this case, was decided because the prosecution had not obtained sufficient evidence to show that the appellants had committed a criminal offense (see Article 277 § 2 of the CCP).
There is therefore a significant difference, and not simply a semantic one, between the legally admissible grounds for a decision to classify without follow-up.
Such a decision, based on the absence of conclusive evidence ( insuficiência de indícios ), cannot be considered proof of innocence ( comprovação da inocentação ).
We consider, therefore, that the alleged violation of the principle of the presumption of innocence must not be upheld, this principle not being relevant to decide the question of the present case.
(...) ”.
55 . Finally, agreeing with the Court of Appeal's analysis (see paragraph 45 above), the Supreme Court considered that, given that GA was a retired civil servant, the only question to be asked could relate to the existence not of a duty of reserve, but of a duty of confidentiality ( dever de sigilo ). She observed that this duty remained even in the case of a retired civil servant. However, it held that, in the present case, the facts in issue had already been made public by the judicial authority and had been widely debated, both at national and international level, and that the investigation had been closed. It concludes that freedom of expression should prevail over the duty of reserve or the duty of confidentiality to which the applicants considered that GA was bound. On the point, the Supreme Court expressed itself as follows :
" (...)
In this case, with regard to the existence of a duty of confidentiality or judicial secrecy which continues during retirement, it must be considered that it is a functional duty which essentially aims to protect the interests of the department to which [GA] belonged, in particular the effectiveness of the criminal investigation.
However, the facts in question had already been made public by the judicial authority and had been widely debated, both nationally and internationally. Furthermore, the investigation was closed.
(...)
It should be added to this that the ECHR, in similar situations, takes account above all of the importance for the proper functioning of justice to have the cooperation of an enlightened and well-informed public (see the Saygılı and Others v. Turkey [no . 19353/03 , 8 January 2008] and July and SARL Liberation v. France , no . 20893/03 [ ECHR 2008 (extracts)]).
We therefore consider that freedom of expression must not give way either to the alleged duty to which [GA] was bound, as its behavior cannot be deemed unlawful on this basis, as considered by the court of first instance.
(...) »
56. The conclusion of the judgment in its relevant parts read as follows :
" (...)
We consider that, in the present case, in view of the facts that have been established, the exercise of freedom of expression has remained within the permissible limits in a society that is today democratic, open and plural, having regard to the criteria for in balance and the principle of proportionality. There was therefore no unlawful interference with the Appellants' right to reputation.
Such a conclusion stems from the interpretation of internal standards, together with the Constitution, but also from the European Convention on Human Rights, read in the light of the case law of the ECHR.
(...)
We must therefore conclude that in the present case the rights to freedom of expression, information and press of the defendants on appeal prevail.
(...). »
vs) The claim of the applicants and the judgment of the Supreme Court of March 21, 2017
57. The applicants, raising a contradiction between the decision and its reasoning, argued that the judgment was void. In particular, they challenged the Supreme Court's analysis of the principle of the presumption of innocence in this case.
58 . In a judgment of March 21, 2017, the applicants were dismissed. In its judgment, the Supreme Court considered that the ground invoked was not valid for the purposes of an application for nullity because there was no contradiction either between the decision and its foundations, or between the foundations themselves. The relevant parts of the judgment read as follows :
“ ... it was established in the [contested] judgment that the said decision [dismissal] could not amount to proof of innocence.
Indeed, the decision does not say anywhere that conclusive evidence would have been gathered and would have made it possible to conclude that no criminal offense had been committed or that the defendants at the time of the facts (here applicants) had not committed it ( see article 277 § 1 of the CCP).
Moreover, the note addressed to the media (...) clearly indicates that the investigation was closed without further action pursuant to article 277 § 2 of the CPP.
Because, if the investigation had been closed pursuant to paragraph 1 of the same article, it could not be reopened (...).
In any event, the idea was simply to challenge the Appellants' assertion that they had been declared innocent by said decision.
Thus, in one case as in the other, independently of the reasons underlying the closing of the investigation without further action (...) we would have considered that public criticism and public control of the functioning of justice were not forbidden (...).
In short, we would still conclude that the principle of the presumption of innocence was not relevant to the question we are called upon to decide.
(...) »
THE RELEVANT DOMESTIC LEGAL FRAMEWORK AND PRACTICE
* THE CONSTITUTION
59. The Constitution guarantees the right to protection of reputation and respect for private life (article 26) as well as freedom of expression and freedom of the press (article 38).
* THE CIVIL CODE
60. The provisions of the Civil Code relevant in the present case read as follows :
Section 70
General personal protection
“ 1. The law protects individuals against attacks or threats of unlawful attacks on their physical or moral integrity.
2. Without prejudice to the civil liability to which the infringement would give rise, the person concerned may request measures, adapted to the circumstances of the case, with the aim of avoiding the execution of a threat or of mitigating the consequences of a violation. »
Section 335
Conflict of rights
" 1. In the event of a conflict between identical or similar rights, the persons concerned must compromise to the extent necessary for all the rights to produce their effects equally, without this being to the detriment of one of the parties. . »
(...) »
Section 483
General principle
" Anyone who, by willful intent or simple fault, unlawfully infringes the rights of others, or any legal provision intended to protect the interests of others, must compensate the injured party for the damages resulting from the such an act.
(...) »
Section 484
Damage to credit and reputation ( Ofensa do credito or do bom nome )
“ Anyone who states or reveals a fact likely to damage the credit and reputation of a natural or legal person will be liable for the damage caused. »
* THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
61 . Article 277 of the CCP is worded as follows in its relevant parts in this case :
Section 277
Dismissal of the investigation ( Arquivamento do inquérito )
" 1. The public prosecutor's office shall issue a dismissal order without further investigation if it has collected sufficient evidence ( prova bastante ) demonstrating that no crime has been committed, that the defendant has not committed a crime in any capacity or that the procedure is legally inadmissible.
2. The investigation is also closed if the prosecution has not been able to obtain sufficient evidence ( indícios suficientes ) to demonstrate that a crime has been committed or to prove the identity of the perpetrators.
(...) »
* OTHER RELEVANT PROVISIONS OF DOMESTIC LAW
* The organic law on the judicial police
62. At the material time, article 12 of the organic law on the judicial police, as approved by decree-law no . 275 -A/2000 of 9 November 2000, read as follows :
“ 1. Acts of criminal procedure and judicial cooperation are subject to judicial secrecy, in accordance with the law.
2. Officials in service within the judicial police may not make public disclosures concerning procedures or confidential matters, except for the aspects referred to in the provisions of this text of law relating to public information and preventive actions. carried out with the population as well as in the relevant provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
3. When admissible, the statements referred to in the preceding paragraph require the authorization of the national director or the deputy national directors, subject to disciplinary proceedings and without prejudice to any possible criminal liability.
4. The actions of prevention and the procedures (...) of investigation are covered by professional secrecy, in application of the general law. »
* The status of retired civil servants
63. Article 74 § 1 of the Statute of retired civil servants ( Estatuto da aposentação ) as approved by Legislative Decree no . 478/1972 of 9 December 1972 reads as follows :
“ The retired agent has the right to a retirement pension and remains linked to the public service. He retains the titles and category of the position he held as well as the rights and duties that are not specifically attached to the status of active agent ( sitação de actividade )”.
PLACE
* SUBJECT OF THE DISPUTE AND QUALIFICATION OF THE COMPLAINTS
64. Relying on Articles 6 §§ 1 and 2, 8 and 10 § 2 of the Convention, the applicants raised two complaints before the Court. First, they allege that the statements made by GA against them in the book " Maddie : a verdade da mentira ", in the documentary adapted from it and in the interview given to the daily newspaper Correio da Manhã (see paragraphs 19, 23 and 24 above) damaged their reputation, their credit, their image and their right to the presumption of innocence. They denounce, more particularly, the rejection by the national jurisdictions of the civil actions which they had engaged to assert their rights at the internal level. Secondly, they argue that the reasoning contained in the decisions given by the Supreme Court following the civil proceedings (see paragraphs 48 and 58 above) infringed their right to the presumption of innocence.
65 . The Court notes that GA was a police inspector but was retired when the book, documentary and daily interview in question were published (see paragraph 15 above). She therefore considers that her actions cannot be imputed to the State. The applicants' first complaint therefore relates to the alleged failure of the national authorities to protect their rights against the acts of an individual. The second complaint relates to the alleged infringement of the applicants' right to the presumption of innocence on account of the reasoning contained in the judgments of the Supreme Court.
66 . The Court points out that it is master of the legal classification of the facts and that it is not bound by that attributed to them by the applicants ( Radomilja and Others v. Croatia [GC], nos . 37685/10 and 22768/12 , § 126, 20 March 2018). Thus, having regard to the circumstances complained of by the applicants and the formulation of their complaints, it will examine the alleged infringement of their right to protection of reputation on account of the assertions made by GA under Article 8 of the Convention and more particularly from the angle of the positive obligations arising from this provision (see paragraph 67 below), and the alleged infringement of their right to the presumption of innocence on account of the reasoning contained in the judgments of the Court Supreme Court under Article 6 § 2 of the Convention alone (see paragraph 103 below).
-
* ON THE ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 8 OF THE CONVENTION
67 . The applicants complain that they were unsuccessful at domestic level despite the damage that GA allegedly caused to their reputation, their credit, their image and their right to the presumption of innocence. As indicated above (see paragraph 66 above), this part of the application should be examined under Article 8 of the Convention alone. In its relevant part in this case, Article 8 is worded as follows:
“1. Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life (...).
(...)»
* On admissibility
1. Applicability of Article 8 of the Convention
68. The Court reiterates that the concept of private life is a broad concept, which includes elements relating to the identity of a person, such as his name, his image and his physical and moral integrity ( Von Hannover v. Germany , no. 59320/00 , § 50, ECHR 2004‑VI). It is accepted in the Court's case-law that a person's right to the protection of his reputation is covered, as part of the right to respect for private life, by Article 8 of the Convention ( Axel Springer AG v. Germany [GC], No. 39954/08 , § 83, 7 February 2012, Delfi AS v. Estonia [GC], No. 64569/09 , § 137, ECHR 2015, Bedat c. 56925/08 , § 72, ECHR 2016, and Medžlis Islamske Zajednice Brčko and Others v. Switzerland [GC], no . Bosnia and Herzegovina [GC], no. 17224/11 , § 76, ECHR 2017). The Court has already ruled that a person's reputation is part of his personal identity and moral integrity, which belong to his private life even if that person is the subject of criticism in the context of public debate ( Pfeifer v. Austria , No. 12556/03 , § 35, 15 November 2007, and Petrie v. Italy , No. 25322/12 , § 39, 18 May 2017). The same considerations apply to a person's honor ( Sanchez Cardenas v. 12148/03 , § 38, 4 October 2007, A. v. Norway , no . 28070/06 , § 64, 9 April 2009, and Kaboğlu and Oran v. Norway , no . 1759/08 and 2 others, § 65, 30 October 2018).
69. However, for Article 8 of the Convention to come into play, the injury to personal reputation must be of a certain level of gravity and must have been carried out in such a way as to cause prejudice to the personal enjoyment of the right to privacy (see Bédat , cited above, § 72, Denisov v. Ukraine [GC], no. 76639/11 , § 112, 25 September 2018, Beizaras and Levickas v. Lithuania , no . 41288/15 , § 117, 14 January 2020, and De Carvalho Basso v. Portugal , (dec.), nos . 73053/14 and 33075/17 , § 43 , 4 February 2021).
70 . The Court notes that the statements at issue made by GA in the book, the documentary and the interview in question relate to the applicants' alleged involvement in the concealment of their daughter's body, to the assumption that they staged kidnapping and alleged acts of negligence towards their daughter (see paragraphs 21-22 above). It considers that these assertions are of sufficient gravity to call for the application of Article 8 of the Convention (see, mutatis mutandis , Sanchez Cardenas , cited above, §§ 33 and 38, and compare with Jishkariani v. Georgia , n 18925/09 , § 47, September 20, 2018).
2. Conclusion
71. Finding that the complaint under Article 8 of the Convention is not manifestly ill-founded or inadmissible on another ground referred to in Article 35 of the Convention, the Court declares it admissible.
* On the background
1. Arguments of the parties
has) The applicants
72 . The applicants complain of an attack on their reputation and their right to the presumption of innocence on account of the statements made by GA in their regard, in his book, in the documentary which is the adaptation and in the interview given to the daily Correio da Manha . They argue that GA assures in a way that they describe as peremptory, sensationalist and dishonest that they are responsible for the death of their daughter, that they concealed her body and that they disguised the facts as kidnapping. They deplore that such accusations were launched even though the investigation opened following the disappearance of their daughter had just been closed and they had just been cleared. The applicants maintain that GA does not even refer, in his book, to the dismissal of the case by the public prosecutor's office as far as they were concerned. They consider that the alleged infringement was all the more serious since the book and the documentary were translated into several languages, which, in addition, according to them, enabled GA to receive significant profits.
73 . The applicants argue that the statements made by GA against them amount to an improper and unacceptable use of freedom of expression not only because they raise doubts as to their innocence, but also because they call into question a decision made by the prosecution. According to them, this is all the more serious since they were made by the inspector who had been in charge of the investigation and who, in this capacity, was, according to them, bound by the duty of discretion and the duty of confidentiality. , which they consider essential to ensure public confidence in state institutions. Furthermore, they consider that GA benefited from the notoriety which he enjoyed because of his intervention in the criminal investigation opened into the disappearance of their daughter. The latter would have relied on facts which he described as indisputable to assert his thesis and give credibility to the allusions made to them even though they had just been declared innocent by the prosecution. According to the applicants, the Supreme Court's judgment in their case contains a flagrant contradiction in that it considers that the book did not relate anything new in relation to the investigation file, whereas the suspicions which weighed against them would have been raised.
74 . The petitioners consider that the State should have sanctioned GA's behavior, not only because they would be innocent but also to protect their right to presumption of innocence and their reputation.
b) The government
75 . The Government considered that the applicants' allegations based on breach of the presumption of innocence were closely linked to those relating to damage to their reputation and that they were therefore covered by Article 8 of the Convention.
76 . He then states that in the present case the question arose of a conflict between divergent rights deserving, in his view, equal protection, namely, on the one hand, GA's right to freedom of expression and opinion, of its publisher and its producer, and, on the other hand, the rights to the protection of the reputation and to the presumption of innocence of the applicants. The Government notes that, in the present case, the higher national courts upheld the rights of the former by considering that they had not exceeded the limits of admissible criticism, an analysis to which it states that it subscribes for the following reasons. Firstly, the disputed statements, part of a court case that has been the subject of massive media coverage both nationally and internationally, relate to a subject of general interest. Secondly, that significant media coverage resulted for the applicants in a high level of public notoriety. Thirdly, the matters in dispute fell within GA's freedom of opinion and thus benefited from greater protection. Fourthly, the applicants having been indicted because of the suspicions which weighed on them and these elements appearing moreover in the investigation file which had been communicated to the press, the thesis defended by GA in his book would have already been made public. It would therefore not have involved confidential elements. At and thus enjoyed greater protection. Fourthly, the applicants having been indicted because of the suspicions which weighed on them and these elements appearing moreover in the investigation file which had been communicated to the press, the thesis defended by GA in his book would have already been made public. It would therefore not have involved confidential elements. At and thus enjoyed greater protection. Fourthly, the applicants having been indicted because of the suspicions which weighed on them and these elements appearing moreover in the investigation file which had been communicated to the press, the thesis defended by GA in his book would have already been made public. It would therefore not have involved confidential elements. At residing, referring to the judgment SIC - Sociedade Independente de Comunicação c. Portugal (no . 29856/13 , § 69, July 27, 2021), the Government finally considers that a conviction would have had a deterrent effect on the debate on court cases.
77. The Government concluded that the domestic courts had upheld GA's freedom of expression in the present case, in accordance with the margin of appreciation which, in their view, fell to them.
2. The Court's assessment
has) General principles
78. Although the essential object of Article 8 is to protect the individual against arbitrary interference by the public authorities, it is not content to order the State to abstain from such interference : this negative undertaking may be add positive obligations inherent in effective respect for private or family life. These obligations may require the adoption of measures aimed at respecting private life even in the relationships of individuals with each other ( Söderman v. Sweden [GC], no. 5786/08 , § 78, ECHR 2013, and Von Hannover v. Germany (no 2) [GC] , nos 40660/08 and 60641/08 , § 98, ECHR 2012). The responsibility of the State may thus be engaged if the facts in dispute result from a failure on its part to guarantee to the persons concerned the enjoyment of the rights enshrined in Article 8 of the Convention ( Bărbulescu v. Romania [GC], No. 61496/08 , § 110, 5 September 2017, and Schüth v. Germany , No. 1620/03 , §§ 54 and 57, ECHR 2010). The boundary between the positive and negative obligations of the State under Article 8 does not lend itself to precise definition ; the applicable principles are nevertheless comparable. In particular, in both cases, it is necessary to take into account the fair balance to be struck between the competing interests at stake ( Von Hannover ( no . 2) , cited above, § 99).
79. The choice of the appropriate measures to guarantee compliance with Article 8 of the Convention in relations between individuals falls in principle within the margin of appreciation of the Contracting States, and what the obligations incumbent on the State either positive or negative ( ibid ., § 104, with references therein). Similarly, under Article 10 of the Convention, the Contracting States have a certain margin of appreciation in judging the necessity and extent of an interference with the freedom of expression protected by that provision ( ibid. ). However, this margin goes hand in hand with a European control covering both the law and the decisions that apply it, even when these come from an independent jurisdiction. In exercising its power of review, the Court does not have the task of substituting itself for the national courts, but it is for it to verify, in the light of the case as a whole, whether the decisions which they rendered under their discretion are consistent with the provisions of the Convention relied upon ( ibid , § 105, with the references cited).
80. In cases which require a balance to be struck between the right to respect for private life and the right to freedom of expression, the Court considers that the outcome of the application cannot in principle vary according to whether the case has been brought before it, under Article 8 of the Convention, by the person who is the subject of the report or, under Article 10, by the editor who published it. Indeed, these rights deserve a priori equal respect. Accordingly , the margin of appreciation should in principle be the same in both cases ( Couderc and Hachette Filipacchi Associés v. France [GC], no. 40454/07 , § 91, ECHR 2015 (extracts) and Medžlis Islamske Zajednice Brčko and others , cited above, § 77).
81 . The relevant criteria for balancing the right to respect for private life and the right to freedom of expression are the following : the contribution to a debate of general interest, the notoriety of the person concerned, the subject of the report, the previous conduct of the person concerned, the content, form and repercussions of the publication, as well as, where appropriate, the circumstances of the case (see, Von Hannover ( no 2) , cited above, §§ 108-113, Axel Springer AG , cited above, §§ 89-95, and Couderc and Hachette Filipacchi Associés , cited above, § 93). If the national authorities have carried out this balancing act in accordance with these criteria, there must be serious reasons for the Court to substitute its opinion for that of the domestic courts ( MGN Limited v. the United Kingdom , no . 39401/04 , § 150 and 155, 18 January 2011, and Palomo Sánchez and others v . Spain [GC] , nos .
82. Finally, the Court recalls that, in order to assess the justification of a contested statement, it is necessary to distinguish between factual statements and value judgments. If the materiality of the facts can be proven, the latter do not lend themselves to a demonstration of their accuracy. The requirement that the truth of value judgments be established is impractical and infringes freedom of opinion itself, a fundamental element of the right guaranteed by Article 10. However, even where a statement amounts to a judgment value, it must be based on a sufficient factual basis, otherwise it would be excessive ( Do Carmo de Portugal e Castro Câmara v. Portugal , no . 53139/11 , § 31, 4 October 2016, and Egil Einarsson v. 24703/15 , § 40 , 7 November 2017).
b) Application of these principles to the present case
83. In the instant case, the applicants complained that the domestic courts had failed in the positive obligation, which they believed to be incumbent on them, to protect their right to the presumption of innocence and their reputation (see paragraph 74 above). The Court notes that the national courts clearly identified the interests at stake, namely, on the one hand, GA's freedom of expression and freedom of opinion and, on the other hand, the right to respect for reputation which was linked to the right to the presumption of innocence of the applicants, and that they made the rights of the first prevail over those of the second. They also observed that these rights deserved equal protection and that, in these circumstances, it was necessary to weigh them (see paragraphs 41, 44 and 48 above).
84. The question which arises is therefore whether the national courts have weighed these rights in accordance with the criteria established by the Court's case-law (see paragraph 81 above). For the purposes of the present case, the Court will examine the contribution of the elements in dispute to a debate of general interest, the previous conduct and notoriety of the applicants, the subject of the book, the documentary and the interview and the method of obtaining information as well as the content of the disputed assertions, their repercussions and the particular circumstances of the case.
* Contribution to a debate of general interest
85. As regards the existence of a question of general interest, the Court observes that the national courts have noted that the criminal proceedings brought concerning the disappearance of the applicants' daughter had had a great media impact both at nationally and internationally and that it had been the subject of much debate (see paragraphs 40 (point 76), 45 and 50 above). In its judgment of 31 January 2017, referring to the Court's case-law, the Supreme Court concluded that the case constituted a matter of public interest (see paragraphs 50-52 above). The Government subscribed to such an analysis (see paragraph 76 above). In the eyes of the Court, there is indeed no doubt that GA's book, its adaptation into a documentary and the interview given by him on a daily basis Correio da Manhã concerned a debate which was of public interest. Indeed, the extensive media coverage the case received testifies to the interest it aroused both nationally and internationally. The Court reiterates in this regard that the public has a legitimate interest in being informed and in obtaining information about criminal proceedings ( Morice v. France [GC], no. 29369/10 , § 152, ECHR 2015, and Bédat , cited above, § 63). Moreover, Article 10 § 2 of the Convention leaves little room for restrictions on freedom of expression with regard to matters of general interest, the margin of appreciation of States in this matter being thus reduced. (see, mutatis mutandis , Satakunnan Markkinapörssi Oy and Satamedia Oy v. 931/13 , § 167 , 27 June 2017). The Court considers that this is the case here (compare with Morice , cited above, § 153, and Prompt v. France , no . 30936/12 , § 43, 3 December 2015).
* The prior conduct and notoriety of the applicants
86. As regards the applicants' conduct before the publication of the book and the dissemination of the other impugned documents, the Court notes that the domestic courts found it established that the applicants had informed the press about the disappearance of their daughter and that They had used communication agencies and recruited press attachés (see paragraph 40 above – see established facts nos . 67 and 77). In its judgment of 14 April 2016, the Lisbon Court of Appeal considered that the latter had deliberately exposed themselves to the media (see paragraph 44 above). The Supreme Court, for its part, concluded in its judgment of 31 January 2017 that the applicants had become public persons and that they should therefore show greater tolerance with regard to the control exercised by the public over them ( paragraph 50 above). The Government subscribed to this analysis (see paragraph 76 above).
87. The Court recalls that, while the limits of admissible criticism are broader with regard to any person who is part of the public sphere, whether by his actions or by his position ( Couderc and Hachette Filipacchi Associés , cited above , § 122), in certain circumstances, a person, even known to the public, may rely on a “ legitimate expectation ” of protection and respect for his private life ( Standard Verlags GmbH v. Austria (no. 2 ) , no. o 21277/05 § 53, 4 June 2009, and Von Hannover (no 2 ) , cited above, § 97).
88. The Court understands that, by having recourse to the media, the applicants wanted to use all possible means to find their daughter. Nevertheless, while they were unknown to the public before the facts, the applicants, because of their exposure to the media, ended up acquiring a certain public notoriety and entering the public sphere. They consequently inevitably and consciously exposed themselves to careful monitoring of their actions and gestures (see Axel Springer AG , cited above, § 54, and compare with Ristamäki and Korvola v. Finland , no . 66456/09 , § 53, 29 October 2013, Salumäki v. Finland , No. 23605/09 , § 55, 29 April 2014, and ML and WW v. 60798/10 and 65599/10 , § 106 , 28 June 2018). That being said, the Court reiterates that the mere fact of having previously cooperated with the press is not such as to deprive the person referred to in an article of all protection ( see Egeland and Hanseid v. Norway , no . 34438/04 , § 62, April 16 , 2009). It will therefore be necessary to determine whether the limits of admissible criticism have been exceeded in the circumstances of the case.
-
As I predicted many moons ago, Goncalo Amaral never defamed the McCanns, they managed that all on their own by their acts of defiance against the Portuguese Police.
Anyone seen Davel? 🤣🤣🤣
If a court has belief they are sincere, then probably not. He made a full conclusion they were involved. Wrote two books, but also lied about evidence and even removed. I tend to think if you felt you were innocent, what would you do to protect your name or family in this matter, would you let people write books about you whilst making a profit? Make another one? Or would you sue? Or would you take a violent stand on it?
-
The ECHR has now upheld the decisions by the Portuguese courts including the Portuguese Supreme Court.
Looks like the end of the line on this one.
-
* The purpose of the book, documentary and interview and how to obtain information
89. The Court notes that, in the present case, the central element in dispute is the book “ Maddie : a verdade da mentira ” of which GA is the author and which was published on 24 July 2008 (paragraphs 19-22 above). above). The documentary which was broadcast on the television channel TVI on 13 April and 12 May 2009 and then marketed is an adaptation of it (paragraph 24-27 above). Daily maintenance Correio da Manhã published on 24 July 2008, the day the book was launched, was part of an effort to publicize it (see paragraph 23 above). The Court notes that the domestic courts noted that the book had been translated into several languages (see paragraph 40 (point 28) above). There is therefore no doubt that this work has been widely distributed.
90. The Court observes that the material in issue concerned the criminal investigation which GA had carried out into the disappearance of Madeleine McCann until he was removed from it (see paragraphs 20 and 14 above). In its judgment of January 31 2017, the Supreme Court considered that the impugned information formulated by GA was not new since it already appeared in the criminal investigation file which had been made available to the media (see paragraphs 50 and 17 above ). It further noted that it was on the basis of these elements that the applicants had been indicted and that this had been the subject of several discussions. In the eyes of the Court, there does not seem to be any doubt, in the present case, that the information contained in the book, the documentary and the interview came from the file relating to the criminal investigation which was public.
* The Content of the Disputed Claims and Their Implications
91. As regards the content of the book, the documentary and the interview, the applicants essentially denounced the assertions that they had, on the one hand, concealed the body of their daughter, who died as a result of an accident domestic, and on the other hand, simulated a kidnapping. They deplore the fact that such insinuations were made when, in their view, the suspicions which weighed on them had just been raised internally with the dismissal of the case (see paragraphs 72-73 above).
92. The Court has already considered that the disputed assertions were serious, especially since they had been made not by a journalist or any individual but by GA, the inspector who had directed the investigation until he was dismissed on 2 October 2007 (see paragraphs 70, 8 and 14 above). It notes that, referring to the Court's case-law, the domestic courts nevertheless considered that they reflected GA's opinion on the case and that they contributed to the discussion of a subject of public interest. (see paragraphs 41, 44 and 51 above). More particularly, in its judgment of January 31, 2017, the Supreme Court tended to consider them as value judgments based on elements of fact, namely the elements which appeared in the investigation file until October 2, 2007, date on which GA had been removed from the investigation (see paragraphs 50-51 above). Moreover, according to the Supreme Court, in view of the aims which GA claimed to pursue in the foreword to his book (see paragraph 21 above), the latter did not show any defamatory intention towards applicants (see paragraph 52 above).
93. Having regard to the context of the case, the Court is also of the opinion that the assertions at issue constituted value judgments based on a sufficient factual basis (see, mutatis mutandis , Falter Zeitschriften GmbH v. Austria , no . 26606 / 04 , § 23, February 22, 2007). Indeed, the elements on which the thesis defended by GA is based are those which were collected during the investigation and which were brought to the attention of the public (paragraph 40 (points 6-7 and 80), and paragraphs 50-51 above). Moreover, this thesis had been considered in the context of the criminal investigation and had even determined the indictment of the applicants on 7 September 2007 (see paragraphs 10-13 above).
94. The Court further notes that the criminal case has captured both national and international public opinion and has given rise to numerous debates and discussions (see paragraph 40 (point 76) and paragraph 50 above). . As noted by the Lisbon Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court, the assertions at issue were unquestionably part of a debate of public interest and GA's thesis therefore constituted one opinion among others (paragraphs 44-45 and 50-51 above).
95. The Court notes that the criminal case was dismissed by the prosecution on 21 July 2008 (see paragraph 16 above). In this respect, it observes that if the book had been published before the prosecutor's decision to dismiss it, the assertions at issue could have undermined the presumption of innocence of the applicants, guaranteed by Article 6 § 2 of the Convention. , by prejudging the assessment of the facts by the investigating authority (see in this respect, Allenet de Ribemont v. France , 10 February 1995, § 41, Series A no . 308 and Khoujine and others v. Russia , no . 13470/02 , § 96, 23 October 2008). Since these assertions were made after the dismissal, it is the applicants' reputation, guaranteed by Article 8 of the Convention, and the way in which they are perceived by the public that are at stake (see, GIEMSRL and others v. Italy [GC], nos . 1828/06 and 2 others, § 314, 28 June 2018, Istrate v. Romania , no . 44546/13 , § 58, 13 April 2021 and the references cited therein and , mutatis mutandis , Marinoni v. Italy , No. 27801/12 , § 32, 18 November 2021). Public confidence in the administration of justice is also at stake (see, mutatis mutandis , Prager and Oberschlick v. Austria , 26 April 1995, § 34, Series A no . 313 ).
96. In the present case, the Court nevertheless considers that, even supposing that the reputation of the applicants had been harmed, it was not because of the argument put forward by GA but because of the suspicions which had been cast against them, which had determined their indictment during the investigation and had been the subject of very significant media coverage as well as numerous debates. In short, it was information of which the public had become fully aware, even before the investigation file was made available to the media and the publication of the impugned book (see paragraph 40 (paragraph 76) above). As regards GA's bad faith alleged by the applicants (see paragraph 72 above), the Court notes that the book was published three days after the case was dismissed (see paragraphs 16 and 19 above), which indicates that it was written and then printed while the investigation was still in progress ( paragraph 21 above). By deciding to put the book up for sale three days after the decision to classify it without further action, the Court considers that GA could have, out of prudence, added a note alerting the reader to the outcome of the procedure. The absence of such a statement cannot, however, by itself prove GA's bad faith. Moreover, the Court notes that the documentary does, for its part, refer to the discontinuance of the case (paragraph 25 above). By deciding to put the book up for sale three days after the decision to classify it without further action, the Court considers that GA could have, out of prudence, added a note alerting the reader to the outcome of the procedure. The absence of such a statement cannot, however, by itself prove GA's bad faith. Moreover, the Court notes that the documentary does, for its part, refer to the discontinuance of the case (paragraph 25 above). By deciding to put the book up for sale three days after the decision to classify it without further action, the Court considers that GA could have, out of prudence, added a note alerting the reader to the outcome of the procedure. The absence of such a statement cannot, however, by itself prove GA's bad faith. Moreover, the Court notes that the documentary does, for its part, refer to the discontinuance of the case (paragraph 25 above).
97. Finally, the Court notes that, after the publication of the book, the applicants continued their actions with the media. In particular, they made a documentary about the disappearance of their daughter and continued to give interviews to the media at international level (see paragraph 40 - (points 68 and 71) above). Although the Court understands that the publication of the book undeniably caused the applicants anger, anguish and concern (see paragraph 40 (point 81) above), it does not appear that this book or the dissemination of the documentary had any repercussions serious about the social relations of those concerned or about the legitimate search they are still pursuing to find their daughter.
* The particular circumstances of the case
98. With regard to the particular circumstances of the present case, the Court observes that the author of the disputed assertions is precisely the PJ inspector who had coordinated the investigation into the disappearance of the applicants' daughter until 2 October 2007 (see paragraphs 8 and 14 above). Taking this factor into account, the domestic courts considered whether GA had breached the professional duties to which he was bound. Although the Lisbon court ruled that, even though he was retired at the time of the events, GA had breached his duty of discretion and the professional secrecy which bound him (see paragraph 42 above), the Court of Appeal Lisbon and the Supreme Court did not see it that way (see paragraphs 45 and 55 above). To reach their conclusion,
99. The Court can agree with this analysis. Admittedly, the contentious assertions are based on the in-depth knowledge of the file held by GA by reason of his duties. However, there is no doubt that these were already known to the public given the extensive media coverage of the case (see paragraphs 8, 10 and 40 (point 76) above) followed by the availability of the investigation file with the media after the closure of the investigation (see paragraph 17 above). The Court is therefore of the opinion that the disputed elements are only the expression of GA's interpretation of a media affair which had already been amply debated. Furthermore, it does not appear that GA was motivated by personal animosity towards the applicants (see Guja v. Moldova [GC], no. o 14277/04 , § 77, ECHR 2008 ; see also paragraph 21 above).
100. Having regard to the particular circumstances of the present case, the Court shares the Government's opinion (see paragraph 76 above) as to the chilling effect which a conviction would have had, in the present case, for the freedom of expression on matters of public interest (see, mutatis mutandis , Kudechkina v. Russia , no . 29492/05 , § 99, February 26, 2009).
vi. Conclusion
101. In the light of all the considerations set out above, the Court considers that, when ruling at last instance, the Supreme Court carried out a detailed assessment of the balance to be struck between the applicants' right to respect for their private life and GA's right to freedom of expression, assessing them in the light of the criteria emerging from its case-law and referring extensively to the case-law of the Court (see paragraphs 49, 51, 53 and 55 above). -above). Given the margin of appreciation enjoyed by the national authorities in the present case, the Court sees no serious reason to substitute its opinion for that of the Supreme Court. It does not therefore appear that the national authorities failed in their positive obligation to protect the applicants' right to respect for their private life.
102. Accordingly, there has been no violation of Article 8 of the Convention.
* ON THE ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 § 2 OF THE CONVENTION ON ACCOUNT OF THE REASONING GIVEN BY THE SUPREME COURT
103 . The applicants allege that the reasoning contained in the judgments delivered by the Supreme Court on 31 January and 21 March 2017 at the end of the civil proceedings (see paragraphs 48 and 58 above) infringed their right to the presumption of innocence. As indicated above (see paragraph 66 above), the Court considers that this complaint should be examined under Article 6 § 2 of the Convention alone, which provides :
“ Anyone charged with an offense is presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law. »
* The arguments of the parties
104. The Government contested the applicability of Article 6 § 2 of the Convention in the instant case. To do this, he considers that there is no link between the criminal proceedings at the end of which the applicants benefited from the abandonment of the proceedings and the civil proceedings brought by them following the publication of the book of GA and the diffusion of the documentary which was the adaptation. He observes that the criminal proceedings concerned the establishment of the circumstances of the disappearance of the applicants' daughter, whereas the civil proceedings concerned the civil liabilities arising from the book and the documentary at issue.
105. The applicants did not comment on the objection raised by the Government.
* The Court's assessment
1. General principles
106. The Court reiterates that the presumption of innocence enshrined in paragraph 2 of Article 6 of the Convention is one of the elements of a fair criminal trial required by Article 6 § 1. The presumption of innocence is violated if an official statement concerning a defendant reflects the feeling that he is guilty, when his guilt has not previously been legally established. All that is required, even in the absence of a formal finding, is a statement of reasons suggesting that the magistrate considers the person concerned to be guilty ( Allenet de Ribemont , cited above, § 35, Series A no . 308 , and Marchiani v. France ( Dec.), No. 30392/03 , January 24, 2006).
107. However, having regard to the need to ensure that the right guaranteed by Article 6 § 2 is practical and effective, the presumption of innocence also has another aspect. Its general purpose, within the framework of this second prong, is to prevent individuals who have benefited from an acquittal or the discontinuance of charges from being treated by public agents or authorities as if they were in fact guilty of the offense with which they were charged. Admittedly, in such situations, the presumption of innocence has already made it possible – through the application during the trial of the various requirements inherent in the procedural guarantee it offers – to prevent an unjust criminal conviction from being pronounced. However, without protection intended to enforce in any subsequent proceedings an acquittal or a decision to drop the charges, 2 would risk becoming theoretical and illusory ( Allen , § 94, and GIEM SRL et al , § 314, both cited above).
108. Whenever the question of the applicability of Article 6 § 2 arises in the context of subsequent proceedings, the applicant must demonstrate the existence of a link – such as that mentioned above – between the completed criminal proceedings and subsequent action. Such a link may be present, for example, when the subsequent action requires the examination of the outcome of the criminal proceedings and, in particular, when it obliges the court concerned to analyze the criminal judgment, to engage in a study or an assessment of the evidence in the criminal case, to assess the applicant's involvement in any or all of the events leading to the indictment, or to comment on continuing indications to suggest a possible culpability of the person concerned ( Allen , supra, § 104).
2. Application of these principles in the present case
109. The Court notes that the civil proceedings at issue in the present case concerned two claims by the applicants. The first sought to obtain compensation for the alleged damage to their reputation and their right to the presumption of innocence arising, according to them, from the assertions made by GA in their regard. The second related to the ban on the sale of the book and documentary in question (see paragraphs 35-36 and 38 above). The proceedings therefore did not relate to a “ criminal charge ” against the applicants. It remains to be seen whether it was linked to the criminal proceedings instituted following the disappearance of their daughter in such a way as to bring it within the scope of Article 6 § 2 of the Convention.
110. The Court notes that the civil courts seised were not, in the present case, legally called upon to examine the content of the decision to close the case without further action of 21 July 2008 (compare with OL v. Finland (dec.) , no. 61110/00 , 5 July 2005, and Martínez Aguirre and Others v. Spain (dec.), nos . 75529/16 and 79503/16 , §§ 46-48, June 25, 2019). If the Supreme Court did so when it was ruling at last instance (see paragraphs 54 and 58 above), it appears that it was in this case in response to the arguments raised by the applicants in their cassation appeal, in which they said they had been declared innocent by this decision (see paragraph 47 above, and compare Daktaras v. Lithuania , no . 42095/98 , § 44, ECHR 2000 ‑ X). The Court also notes that the Supreme Court did not carry out an assessment of the evidence which had been added to the file of the criminal investigation (compare with Kaiser v. Austria (dec.), no. 15706/08 , § 51, 13 December 2016) and that it only considered the reason for dismissal in order to base its decisions. In its judgments of January 31 , 2017 and March 27, 2017, it then noted that the abandonment of the proceedings against the applicants had resulted not from a finding of innocence but from a lack of conclusive evidence with regard to Article 277 § 2 of the CCP (see paragraph 61 above) and that, in such circumstances, the criminal investigation could be reopened at any time if decisive evidence were collected (see paragraphs 54 and 58 above, see also the principles set out in paragraph 44 of the Bikas v. Germany judgment (no . 76607/13 , 25 January 2018)).
111. Moreover, even assuming that Article 6 § 2 of the Convention were applicable to the civil proceedings at issue in the present case, it does not appear that, in its judgments of 31 January 2017 and 27 March 2017 , the Supreme Court made comments suggesting the applicants' guilt or even suspicion regarding the circumstances of their daughter's disappearance (see, Allen , cited above, § 122 and compare with O'Neill v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 14541/15 , §§ 37-39, 8 January 2019).
112. Having regard to these findings, the Court concludes that the applicants' complaint based on Article 6 § 2 of the Convention on account of the reasoning of the judgments of the Supreme Court is manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention and, as such, inadmissible. It must therefore be rejected pursuant to Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention.
FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY ,
1. Declares the complaint concerning Article 8 of the Convention admissible and the remainder of the application inadmissible ;
2. Holds that there has been no violation of Article 8 of the Convention.
Done in French, then communicated in writing on September 20, 2022, in application of article 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the regulations.
Ilse Freiwirth - Assistant Registrar
Gabriele Kucsko-Stadlmayer - President
-
As I predicted many moons ago, Goncalo Amaral never defamed the McCanns or damaged their reputation, they managed that all on their own by their acts of defiance against the Portuguese Police.
Anyone seen Davel?
Also Portugal did not breach their rights to the presumption of innocence. In fact that claim was deemed 'manifestly ill-founded' and therefore inadmissible.
Seven ECHR judges agreed on this judgement, so hopefully we've heard the last of such allegations.
-
Also Portugal did not breach their rights to the presumption of innocence. In fact that claim was deemed 'manifestly ill-founded' and therefore inadmissible.
Seven ECHR judges agreed on this judgement, so hopefully we've heard the last of such allegations.
This must come as a really bitter pill to swallow after more than 15 years. Will they have to raid the Madeleine Fund now to pay off Amaral?
-
Also Portugal did not breach their rights to the presumption of innocence. In fact that claim was deemed 'manifestly ill-founded' and therefore inadmissible.
Seven ECHR judges agreed on this judgement, so hopefully we've heard the last of such allegations.
Free Speech takes precedence.
-
Free Speech takes precedence.
They had their free speech. Now it's time to pay up!
-
This must come as a really bitter pill to swallow after more than 15 years. Will they have to raid the Madeleine Fund now to pay off Amaral?
It certainly must be a bitter pill for all those who hoped that Amaral was going to get his comeuppance.
-
Also Portugal did not breach their rights to the presumption of innocence. In fact that claim was deemed 'manifestly ill-founded' and therefore inadmissible.
Seven ECHR judges agreed on this judgement, so hopefully we've heard the last of such allegations.
Was it a unanimous decision ? If so I cannot see how any appeal could succeed .
-
Free Speech takes precedence.
Not always. The free speech of officials such as Prosecutors, media organisations and journalists have restrictions on their freedom of speech.
-
The judgement goes some way to make clear that it is not in any way suggestive that Gerry and Kate McCann were in any way involved in their daughter's disappearance.
Gonçalo Amaral did not defame the McCanns, that is the bottom line.
-
If a court has belief they are sincere, then probably not. He made a full conclusion they were involved. Wrote two books, but also lied about evidence and even removed. I tend to think if you felt you were innocent, what would you do to protect your name or family in this matter, would you let people write books about you whilst making a profit? Make another one? Or would you sue? Or would you take a violent stand on it?
Conversely, if you were infact guilty you might also be rather keen to have the book banned for that very reason, wouldn't you agree?
-
The judgement goes some way to make clear that it is not in any way suggestive that Gerry and Kate McCann were in any way involved in their daughter's disappearance.
Gonçalo Amaral did not defame the McCanns, that is the bottom line.
The book was based on the files, the case & files were public knowledge, where he differed from the files was in his hypothesis based on the findings of the investigation. The McCanns made themselves public figures & thus opened themselves to criticism & to the advancement of theories other than their own.
But yes, the McCanns are still legally presumed innocent. But what if they're not really entirely innocent though aye, who knows? Well, Wolters actually.
-
They had their free speech. Now it's time to pay up!
I haven't had mine yet. And The McCanns could well have more to say. Who is going to sue them in the light of this decision?
-
I haven't had mine yet. And The McCanns could well have more to say. Who is going to sue them in the light of this decision?
Why would anyone want to ?
-
Not always. The free speech of officials such as Prosecutors, media organisations and journalists have restrictions on their freedom of speech.
There doesn't appear to be any restriction on my right to Free Speech.
-
MORE CHEATING !!
In the address at the top, this topic has an https: sign with a black triangle across it. This black triangle negates the security of that which is written.
In other words it changes Https to Http [No *s*]
Sorry guys, but anyone can write any nonsense here and get away with it. Cheats.
I suggest that you dont believe a word of it until you have bona fide information
I hate cheats, liars and bullies.
-
Why would anyone want to ?
Good.
-
There doesn't appear to be any restriction on my right to Free Speech.
Probably not. but other than a few on here & perhaps elsewhere, who is going to listen ?
-
Probably not. but other than a few on here & perhaps elsewhere, who is going to listen ?
I only Post on this Forum. My Right to Free Speech has been banned anywhere else.
-
Why would anyone want to ?
Men vs McCann/Healy
In light of the McCanns comments that 'a bad man' took Maddie, I fully intend to pursue a civil action against the McCanns regarding this unfounded & damaging smearing of men, just as soon as I wrap up my other action, Paedophiles vs McCann.
-
Goodness me. Some of you really don't get it.
-
Was it a unanimous decision ? If so I cannot see how any appeal could succeed .
It appears a well considered judgement & probably difficult to overturn imo.
But who knows?
We'll just have to be patient & wait for the McCanns appeal, then a small matter of another 15 years to find out for sure.
-
I've only come back to gloat.
AHAHAHAHAHAAAAAA.....ahhahaahahaaa.......
Laterz.
-
Goodness me. Some of you really don't get it.
we might if we knew what you were talking about
-
I've only come back to gloat.
AHAHAHAHAHAAAAAA.....ahhahaahahaaa.......
Laterz.
Glad to see you're still alive, I've missed your wummy sense of humour, don't stay away too long.
-
MORE CHEATING !!
In the address at the top, this topic has an https: sign with a black triangle across it. This black triangle negates the security of that which is written.
In other words it changes Https to Http [No *s*]
Sorry guys, but anyone can write any nonsense here and get away with it. Cheats.
I suggest that you dont believe a word of it until you have bona fide information
I hate cheats, liars and bullies.
Is nobody concerned? The black triangle only shows on pages 1 and 2 of this topic. In other words where the ECHR translation shows.
-
Conversely, if you were infact guilty you might also be rather keen to have the book banned for that very reason, wouldn't you agree?
Unless you are a mastermind and guilty to go down that route. However its also humanistic to protect your status of innocence. Hypothetically i would do the same. Ppl do tend to get mad when i cud imagine if accused of covering up ur daughters death, lucky they were doctors and not from a council estate eh? You never know what violence these stereotyped council estate nutters could do.
-
The judgement goes some way to make clear that it is not in any way suggestive that Gerry and Kate McCann were in any way involved in their daughter's disappearance.
Gonçalo Amaral did not defame the McCanns, that is the bottom line.
Makes one wonder exactly what has to be said or done in order to be considered defamatory.
-
Unless you are a mastermind and guilty to go down that route. However its also humanistic to protect your status of innocence. Hypothetically i would do the same. Ppl do tend to get mad when i cud imagine if accused of covering up ur daughters death, lucky they were doctors and not from a council estate eh? You never know what violence these stereotyped council estate nutters could do.
I do.
-
In a statement issued through their lawyers, they said: "We are naturally disappointed with decision of the European Court of Human Rights announced today.
"However, much has changed since we started legal proceedings 13 years ago against Mr Amaral, his publisher and broadcaster.
"We took action for one and only one reason: Mr Amaral's unfounded claims were having a detrimental impact on the search for Madeleine.
"If the public believed that we were involved in her disappearance, then people would not be alert for possible clues and may not report relevant information to the relevant law enforcement agencies.
"The focus is now rightly on the search for Madeleine and her abductor(s). We are grateful for the ongoing work by the British, German and Portuguese police. We hope that, with the help of the public, hard work and diligence we can eventually find those responsible for Madeleine's disappearance and bring them to justice."
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2022/09/20/madeleine-mccann-kate-gerry-mccann-lose-latest-stage-libel-battle/
-
In a statement issued through their lawyers, they said: "We are naturally disappointed with decision of the European Court of Human Rights announced today.
"However, much has changed since we started legal proceedings 13 years ago against Mr Amaral, his publisher and broadcaster.
"We took action for one and only one reason: Mr Amaral's unfounded claims were having a detrimental impact on the search for Madeleine.
"If the public believed that we were involved in her disappearance, then people would not be alert for possible clues and may not report relevant information to the relevant law enforcement agencies.
"The focus is now rightly on the search for Madeleine and her abductor(s). We are grateful for the ongoing work by the British, German and Portuguese police. We hope that, with the help of the public, hard work and diligence we can eventually find those responsible for Madeleine's disappearance and bring them to justice."
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2022/09/20/madeleine-mccann-kate-gerry-mccann-lose-latest-stage-libel-battle/
"We took action for one and only one reason: Mr Amaral's unfounded claims were having a detrimental impact on the search for Madeleine.
"If the public believed that we were involved in her disappearance, then people would not be alert for possible clues and may not report relevant information to the relevant law enforcement agencies.
...........
Well, Wolters has messed that up for them hasn't he.
I mean, since he stated that Maddie is dead & Brueckner murdered her, I haven't bothered looking for her at all.
I did find a £2 coin whilst searching for the remote down the back of the sofa the other day though.
-
Makes one wonder exactly what has to be said or done in order to be considered defamatory.
We now know what isn't defamatory though.
-
"We took action for one and only one reason: Mr Amaral's unfounded claims were having a detrimental impact on the search for Madeleine.
"If the public believed that we were involved in her disappearance, then people would not be alert for possible clues and may not report relevant information to the relevant law enforcement agencies.
...........
Well, Wolters has messed that up for them hasn't he.
I mean, since he stated that Maddie is dead & Brueckner murdered her, I haven't bothered looking for her at all.
I did find a £2 coin whilst searching for the remote down the back of the sofa the other day though.
The entire German nation stopped searching June '20.
Nobody noticed.
-
Is nobody concerned? The black triangle only shows on pages 1 and 2 of this topic. In other words where the ECHR translation shows.
It's just an expired certificate or some other minor issue.
-
Is nobody concerned? The black triangle only shows on pages 1 and 2 of this topic. In other words where the ECHR translation shows.
Sadie, the McCanns lost, it’s on the BBC website.
-
We now know what isn't defamatory though.
I guess as soon as HCW is sacked he can write a bestselling book claiming CB dunnit even if the investigation into the latter is dropped. That’s his pension fund sorted anyway.
-
I guess as soon as HCW is sacked he can write a bestselling book claiming CB dunnit even if the charges against the latter are dropped. That’s his pension fund sorted anyway.
You think Brueckner will ever be charged?
Even Wolters can't see that happening.
-
In a statement issued through their lawyers, they said: "We are naturally disappointed with decision of the European Court of Human Rights announced today.
"However, much has changed since we started legal proceedings 13 years ago against Mr Amaral, his publisher and broadcaster.
"We took action for one and only one reason: Mr Amaral's unfounded claims were having a detrimental impact on the search for Madeleine.
"If the public believed that we were involved in her disappearance, then people would not be alert for possible clues and may not report relevant information to the relevant law enforcement agencies.
"The focus is now rightly on the search for Madeleine and her abductor(s). We are grateful for the ongoing work by the British, German and Portuguese police. We hope that, with the help of the public, hard work and diligence we can eventually find those responsible for Madeleine's disappearance and bring them to justice."
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2022/09/20/madeleine-mccann-kate-gerry-mccann-lose-latest-stage-libel-battle/
The McCann's unfounded claim that Mr Amaral's unfounded claims were having a detrimental impact on the search for Madeleine may explain their initial actions. How do they justify continuing after that claim was dismissed by the court of the first instant I wonder?
-
The McCann's unfounded claim that Mr Amaral's unfounded claims were having a detrimental impact on the search for Madeleine may explain their initial actions. How do they justify continuing after that claim was dismissed by the court of the first instant I wonder?
What year did that happen?
-
I do.
I do what?
-
I do what?
Know what violence these stereotyped council estate nutters could do.
-
we might if we knew what you were talking about
That, My Dear, is your problem.
-
We now know what isn't defamatory though.
Don't we ever.
-
I guess as soon as HCW is sacked he can write a bestselling book claiming CB dunnit even if the investigation into the latter is dropped. That’s his pension fund sorted anyway.
That could be a good one. No point in Brueckner suing, is there.
-
We now know what isn't defamatory though.
I know what is and what is not libellous. Experience indicates there are those who do not share that knowledge. I will be obliged therefor for you to refrain from my inclusion in any "we" you incline to post on that or any other subject.
-
It's just an expired certificate or some other minor issue - chill out girl.
No, it is not.
It is a serious warning. Ignore it at your peril, or more likely at The Mccanns peril. Cos it could all be altered from the original
Cheating. I hate it, but seem to thrive on it.
BTW, have you seen Matt James recently and his two wizards, older and younger with the hots etc etc. for a young lady who is supposed to be Madeleine It implies that she was pregnant and they tried by IVF same as Kate. Also by natural means. Hmm, very interesting if you can find your way in.
It seems to have been blocked a few months or so ago. I wonder why?
-
Sadie, the McCanns lost, it’s on the BBC website.
I am aware and despair, but for that black triangle to come up is a warning that something is wrong . I think that phrases may have been changed. I feel sorry for Anthro latching on to it tbh.
-
No, it is not.
It is a serious warning. Ignore it at your peril, or more likely at The Mccanns peril. Cos it could all be altered from the original
Cheating. I hate it, but seem to thrive on it.
BTW, have you seen Matt James recently and his two wizards, older and younger with the hots etc etc. for a young lady who is supposed to be Madeleine It implies that she was pregnant and they tried by IVF same as Kate. Also by natural means. Hmm, very interesting if you can find your way in.
It seems to have been blocked a few months or so ago. I wonder why?
It is intriguing, I have to say.
-
The McCann's unfounded claim that Mr Amaral's unfounded claims were having a detrimental impact on the search for Madeleine may explain their initial actions. How do they justify continuing after that claim was dismissed by the court of the first instant I wonder?
There was no active search of any kind except for that organised and funded by Madeleine McCanns parents. Based on the content of Amaral's book you and many others have resisted severally and individually all and any investigation into Madeleine's abduction.
Your flawed opinions and Amaral's flawed opinions all based on flawed 'evidence' mean absolutely nothing now.
The McCanns have got what they wanted with the evidence based inquiry into a prime suspect in Madeleine's disappearance. How sad are those why decry hoping there will be answers as a result.
-
That could be a good one. No point in Brueckner suing, is there.
I guess what this ruling means is that any ex cop can write a book about any investigation he or she was involved in and conclude thst the person they were investigating for a particular crime was actually responsible, even if susbsequently that person was cleared or charges dropped, eg the case of Colin Stagg, or any of the numerous cases against celebrities such as Cliff Richard and Leon Brittain. Their fault for being accused in the first place, and their fault for either being well known or publicly campaigning to try and clear their name. That all seems very fair I’m sure.
-
I guess what this ruling means is that any ex cop can write a book about any investigation he or she was involved in and conclude thst the person they were investigating for a particular crime was actually responsible, even if susbsequently that person was cleared or charges dropped, eg the case of Colin Stagg, or any of the numerous cases against celebrities such as Cliff Richard and Leon Brittain. Their fault for being accused in the first place, and their fault for either being well known or publicly campaigning to try and clear their name. That all seems very fair I’m sure.
If you think this is a victory for Amaral, you are mistaken. He's been unanimously vindicted, yes, but at what personal toll?
-
I guess what this ruling means is that any ex cop can write a book about any investigation he or she was involved in and conclude thst the person they were investigating for a particular crime was actually responsible, even if susbsequently that person was cleared or charges dropped, eg the case of Colin Stagg, or any of the numerous cases against celebrities such as Cliff Richard and Leon Brittain. Their fault for being accused in the first place, and their fault for either being well known or publicly campaigning to try and clear their name. That all seems very fair I’m sure.
This Ruling rather puts paid to me being of any use as a Moderator when it comes to Freedom of Speech. A can of worms has just been opened.
-
This Ruling rather puts paid to me being of any use as a Moderator when it comes to Freedom of Speech. A can of worms has just been opened.
Freedom of speech is the winner here today.
We're currently living in a country where you can't politely berate a royal nonce without being beaten to the ground and arrested.
-
If you think this is a victory for Amaral, you are mistaken. He's been unanimously vindicted, yes, but at what personal toll?
Amaral is a self serving moron. But will he shut up now? I somewhat doubt it. Things could get really interesting.
-
I guess what this ruling means is that any ex cop can write a book about any investigation he or she was involved in and conclude thst the person they were investigating for a particular crime was actually responsible, even if susbsequently that person was cleared or charges dropped, eg the case of Colin Stagg, or any of the numerous cases against celebrities such as Cliff Richard and Leon Brittain. Their fault for being accused in the first place, and their fault for either being well known or publicly campaigning to try and clear their name. That all seems very fair I’m sure.
Did DCI Keith Pedder write just such a book in relation to Colin Stagg?
-
Amaral is a self serving moron. But will he shut up now? I somewhat doubt it. Things could get really interesting.
Now you're getting the hang of it - freedom to call Amaral what you like without fear of legal action.
Well, not quite; you can say / type it, but it may be tested down the line in a civil court. How it should be. Hurrah for Orwell.
-
Amaral is a self serving moron. But will he shut up now? I somewhat doubt it. Things could get really interesting.
Who knows or even cares ?
No doubt as long as someone is prepared to ask/pay for a quote, he's likely to respond. And why not?
-
Did DCI Keith Pedder write just such a book in relation to Colin Stagg?
Did he? I don't know. Was he a pc when he wrote it or had he retired? Did Stagg sue?
-
Who knows or even cares ?
No doubt as long as someone is prepared to ask/pay for a quote, he's likely to respond. And why not?
I've maintained this stance all along - it's the ching ching train. It's rumbling on as we speak. He's probably being asked for interviews right now - and he will provide the sweaty media their soundbites for a wee fee; carefully curated by his legal team, no doubt. It's nice work if you can get it.
-
This Ruling rather puts paid to me being of any use as a Moderator when it comes to Freedom of Speech. A can of worms has just been opened.
I think anything goes now, say what you like about whom you like, who cares anyway. Bruckner abducted Madeleine and murdered her and I don't care what anyone says or what evidence there is to the contrary - if I want to say it I shall.
-
There was no active search of any kind except for that organised and funded by Madeleine McCanns parents. Based on the content of Amaral's book you and many others have resisted severally and individually all and any investigation into Madeleine's abduction.
Your flawed opinions and Amaral's flawed opinions all based on flawed 'evidence' mean absolutely nothing now.
The McCanns have got what they wanted with the evidence based inquiry into a prime suspect in Madeleine's disappearance. How sad are those why decry hoping there will be answers as a result.
Based on my assessment of the evidence I can see no reason to choose abduction as the only lead worthy of investigation. Unless and until definitive evidence is released, I will continue holding the same opinion as the Portuguese prosecutors;
"it was not possible to obtain any piece of evidence that would allow for a medium man, under the light of the criteria of logics, of normality and of the general rules of experience, to formulate any lucid, sensate, serious and honest conclusion about the circumstances under which the child was removed from the apartment"
https://mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/LEGAL_SUMMARY.htm
-
Freedom of speech is the winner here today.
We're currently living in a country when you can't politely berate a royal nonce without being beaten to the ground and arrested.
Beware of what you might wish for. Everything has just gone *Tits* up.
-
Based on my assessment of the evidence I can see no reason to choose abduction as the only lead worthy of investigation. Unless and until definitive evidence is released, I will continue holding the same opinion as the Portuguese prosecutors;
"it was not possible to obtain any piece of evidence that would allow for a medium man, under the light of the criteria of logics, of normality and of the general rules of experience, to formulate any lucid, sensate, serious and honest conclusion about the circumstances under which the child was removed from the apartment"
https://mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/LEGAL_SUMMARY.htm
But that's so 2008. It's a bit like a YEC citing Georges Cuvier who claimed there was no evidence for the theory of evolution.
-
I think anything goes now, say what you like about whom you like, who cares anyway. Bruckner abducted Madeleine and murdered her and I don't care what anyone says or what evidence there is to the contrary - if I want to say it I shall.
There's another device at work here, though; the forum rules. The forum owner is still at risk of being sued for your ill-advised comments.
-
Now you're getting the hang of it - freedom to call Amaral what you like without fear of legal action.
Well, not quite; you can say / type it, but it may be tested down the line in a civil court. How it should be. Hurrah for Orwell.
I have never needed the Right to Free Speech. But few would understand that sentiment.
-
Did he? I don't know. Was he a pc when he wrote it or had he retired? Did Stagg sue?
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Murder-Common-Secret-Shocked-Library/dp/184454057X
-
I think anything goes now, say what you like about whom you like, who cares anyway. Bruckner abducted Madeleine and murdered her and I don't care what anyone says or what evidence there is to the contrary - if I want to say it I shall.
Sadly, I still believe in The Presumption of Innocence, although God knows why. I can only guess that it's a personal thing.
-
Freedom of speech is the winner here today.
We're currently living in a country where you can't politely berate a royal nonce without being beaten to the ground and arrested.
No, I'm sorry, no one has proven Andrew slept with Miss Guffrie.
Just because he paid her tens of millions to settle out of court, doesn't mean he's guilty.
-
Did he? I don't know. Was he a pc when he wrote it or had he retired? Did Stagg sue?
Stagg received £700,000 in compensation.
-
But that's so 2008. It's a bit like a YEC citing Georges Cuvier who claimed there was no evidence for the theory of evolution.
I know what I think of The Theory of Evolution, which is not a lot when it comes to the majority.
-
There's another device at work here, though; the forum rules. The forum owner is still at risk of being sued for your ill-advised comments.
Then John will have to decide, which is fine by me. Just let me know what I am supposed to do.
-
Based on my assessment of the evidence I can see no reason to choose abduction as the only lead worthy of investigation. Unless and until definitive evidence is released, I will continue holding the same opinion as the Portuguese prosecutors;
"it was not possible to obtain any piece of evidence that would allow for a medium man, under the light of the criteria of logics, of normality and of the general rules of experience, to formulate any lucid, sensate, serious and honest conclusion about the circumstances under which the child was removed from the apartment"
https://mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/LEGAL_SUMMARY.htm
If you wish to continue with the halcyon "Groundhog Day" of 2008 please consider yourself to be my guest.
For myself, I prefer to move with the times and by my watch we have now arrived at the year 2022 when after years of investigation the many inadequateness of the inconclusive Portuguese investigation have been addressed.
-
But that's so 2008. It's a bit like a YEC citing Georges Cuvier who claimed there was no evidence for the theory of evolution.
In that case the evidence was provided. Not in this one as yet.
-
Then John will have to decide, which is fine by me. Just let me know what I am supposed to do.
Just carry on, type with impunity and let the mods decide. They are, after all, de facto guardians of John's reputation by appointment.
-
Based on my assessment of the evidence I can see no reason to choose abduction as the only lead worthy of investigation. Unless and until definitive evidence is released, I will continue holding the same opinion as the Portuguese prosecutors;
"it was not possible to obtain any piece of evidence that would allow for a medium man, under the light of the criteria of logics, of normality and of the general rules of experience, to formulate any lucid, sensate, serious and honest conclusion about the circumstances under which the child was removed from the apartment"
https://mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/LEGAL_SUMMARY.htm
If you wish to continue with the halcyon "Groundhog Day" of 2008 please consider yourself to be my guest.
For myself, I prefer to move with the times and by my watch we have now arrived at the year 2022 when after years of investigation the many inadequateness of the inconclusive Portuguese investigation have been addressed.
No its not, Wolters has never said how he thinks his suspect and Madeleine came together.
-
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Murder-Common-Secret-Shocked-Library/dp/184454057X
OK thanks, and what about answering my other questions?
-
Sadly, I still believe in The Presumption of Innocence, although God knows why. I can only guess that it's a personal thing.
The more I read the more perplexed I become.
As for the right of presumption of innocence that Kate and Gerry McCann considered to have been called into question, the ECtHR admits that if the former inspector's book had come out before the investigation of the Public Prosecutor's Office (MP) had ruled out the parents of an alleged involvement in the disappearance of the daughter, The statements of Gonçalo Amaral "could have undermined the presumption of innocence (...), the assessment of the facts."
"This was information about which the public already had extensive knowledge, including before the disclosure of the investigation dossier in the media and the publication of the book," the court refuted.
The judges assumed that the book "undeniably caused anger, anxiety and concern" to Maddie's parents, but reiterated that "it does not appear that the book or the dissemination of the documentary has had a serious impact on the applicants' social relationships or the legitimate search to find their daughter."
"The court found that even assuming that the reputation of the applicants was damaged, this was not due to the argument put forward by the author of the book but to the suspicions expressed against them, which led them to be under investigation during the criminal investigation and generated intense media attention and much controversy," the European Court of Human Rights said.
https://www.dn.pt/sociedade/tribunal-europeu-dos-direitos-humanos-iliba-justica-portuguesa-de-queixa-dos-pais-de-maddie-15180013.html
-
In that case the evidence was provided. Not in this one as yet.
The evidence for evolution continues to be rejected to this day, and by one of the most notorious McCann sceptics too (how unsurprising!)
-
If you wish to continue with the halcyon "Groundhog Day" of 2008 please consider yourself to be my guest.
For myself, I prefer to move with the times and by my watch we have now arrived at the year 2022 when after years of investigation the many inadequateness of the inconclusive Portuguese investigation have been addressed.
Fine by me. So long as you remember that Amaral and the state of Portugal breached none of the McCann's human rights, much as some have tried to convince people that they did.
-
Just carry on, type with impunity and let the mods decide. They are, after all, de facto guardians of John's reputation by appointment.
I am a Mod. So much for your understanding of what is going on.
-
The more I read the more perplexed I become.
As for the right of presumption of innocence that Kate and Gerry McCann considered to have been called into question, the ECtHR admits that if the former inspector's book had come out before the investigation of the Public Prosecutor's Office (MP) had ruled out the parents of an alleged involvement in the disappearance of the daughter, The statements of Gonçalo Amaral "could have undermined the presumption of innocence (...), the assessment of the facts."
"This was information about which the public already had extensive knowledge, including before the disclosure of the investigation dossier in the media and the publication of the book," the court refuted.
The judges assumed that the book "undeniably caused anger, anxiety and concern" to Maddie's parents, but reiterated that "it does not appear that the book or the dissemination of the documentary has had a serious impact on the applicants' social relationships or the legitimate search to find their daughter."
"The court found that even assuming that the reputation of the applicants was damaged, this was not due to the argument put forward by the author of the book but to the suspicions expressed against them, which led them to be under investigation during the criminal investigation and generated intense media attention and much controversy," the European Court of Human Rights said.
https://www.dn.pt/sociedade/tribunal-europeu-dos-direitos-humanos-iliba-justica-portuguesa-de-queixa-dos-pais-de-maddie-15180013.html
It seems pretty straightforward to me. Amaral's book didn't in the estimation of the court) ruin their reputation anymore than it was already ruined when the PJ (under Amaral's coordinatorship) decide to make them arguidos, whilst simultaneously feeding a load of rubbish stories to the PT media.
-
If you wish to continue with the halcyon "Groundhog Day" of 2008 please consider yourself to be my guest.
For myself, I prefer to move with the times and by my watch we have now arrived at the year 2022 when after years of investigation the many inadequateness of the inconclusive Portuguese investigation have been addressed.
Yes, yes, & they'll be nailing the abductor any day now, isn't it.
-
No its not, Wolters has never said how he thinks his suspect and Madeleine came together.
This relates to his refusal to interview CB for fear of showing his hand, which could then lead to him filling the gaps and retrofitting. Which, in the cold light of the passing of two years, has been shown to be an utterly bizarre tactic, borne out of a conspicuous lack of evidence and an insecure prosecutor bent on hedging his bets.
He should have taken a leaf from Dr. Amaral's successful playbook and go all in.
-
No its not, Wolters has never said how he thinks his suspect and Madeleine came together.
The German Prosecutor is highly unlikely to release evidence into the public domain prior to it being presented in court.
Therefore how on earth do you expect anyone to think you have 'inside information'. You don't! You can only rehearse your suppositions, just like everyone else and accept that you do not know what evidence there is against the German prime suspect; except it was sufficient to convince the Portuguese Judiciary to make him arguido.
-
The evidence for evolution continues to be rejected to this day, and by one of the most notorious McCann sceptics too (how unsurprising!)
We are here to breed and only that. And the larger the gene pool of idiots then the more idiots will be born. The rest of us will have to try to keep a sense of proportion in the light of the ruling today. But things ain't looking good.
-
Much as been made by the press over the time of the ECHR case that should the McCanns lose then they could well need the fund to pay out, can't see any mention of monies in the judgement.
-
No its not, Wolters has never said how he thinks his suspect and Madeleine came together.
Through the window, dummy, that's the link with the Behan case, remember.
-
The German Prosecutor is highly unlikely to release evidence into the public domain prior to it being presented in court.
Therefore how on earth do you expect anyone to think you have 'inside information'. You don't! You can only rehearse your suppositions, just like everyone else and accept that you do not know what evidence there is against the German prime suspect; except it was sufficient to convince the Portuguese Judiciary to make him arguido.
But it isn't sufficient to pursue a successful conviction anytime in the foreseeable future though.
I think I might have mentioned that before.
-
According to this there will be no appeal.
Contacted by Expresso, Ricardo Correia Afonso said that the couple's defense will not appeal the decision of the European court.
https://expresso.pt/sociedade/2022-09-20-Casal-McCann-naturalmente-desapontado-com-a-decisao-do-Tribunal-dos-Direitos-do-Homem-9ff3de47
-
According to this there will be no appeal.
Contacted by Expresso, Ricardo Correia Afonso said that the couple's defense will not appeal the decision of the European court.
https://expresso.pt/sociedade/2022-09-20-Casal-McCann-naturalmente-desapontado-com-a-decisao-do-Tribunal-dos-Direitos-do-Homem-9ff3de47
Having had their applications denied so unequivocally, they are right to slink off exit stage right. At least they've decided to pour all of their efforts in to finding Maddie now, which perhaps they should have stuck to to begin with. Hindsight, I suppose.
-
From the closed thread posted by John.
The judgement by the ECHR is pretty comprehensive imo and leaves very little manoeuvring room for any appeal but it is their right should they choose to go down that road. Talking of roads, I still believe the Smith's sighting the night Madeleine disappeared will remain a crucial element of this case.
Yep the only person seen with a child matching a description close to that of Madeleine.(Redwood 2013)
-
Fine by me. So long as you remember that Amaral and the state of Portugal breached none of the McCann's human rights, much as some have tried to convince people that they did.
Did not the ECHR just deliver a ruling on the primacy of the Freedom of speech. Or do you think that is for those and such as those.
-
According to this there will be no appeal.
Contacted by Expresso, Ricardo Correia Afonso said that the couple's defense will not appeal the decision of the European court.
https://expresso.pt/sociedade/2022-09-20-Casal-McCann-naturalmente-desapontado-com-a-decisao-do-Tribunal-dos-Direitos-do-Homem-9ff3de47
Well that's a relief. Goodness knows how much longer it would have dragged on through an appeal process.
Though with a 7 - nil decision, I can't see how it would have succeeded .
Time to settle any money owing to anyone.
-
From the closed thread posted by John.
Yep the only person seen with a child matching a description close to that of Madeleine.(Redwood 2013)
The closed, reopened, then closed again thread?
I agree. The dismissal of literally the only credible eye witness borders on criminal.
-
According to this there will be no appeal.
Contacted by Expresso, Ricardo Correia Afonso said that the couple's defense will not appeal the decision of the European court.
https://expresso.pt/sociedade/2022-09-20-Casal-McCann-naturalmente-desapontado-com-a-decisao-do-Tribunal-dos-Direitos-do-Homem-9ff3de47
Thank god!
-
We are here to breed and only that. And the larger the gene pool of idiots then the more idiots will be born. The rest of us will have to try to keep a sense of proportion in the light of the ruling today. But things ain't looking good.
Far be it for me to be the spanner in the ointment, but that's not technically correct.
-
It seems pretty straightforward to me. Amaral's book didn't in the estimation of the court) ruin their reputation anymore than it was already ruined when the PJ (under Amaral's coordinatorship) decide to make them arguidos, whilst simultaneously feeding a load of rubbish stories to the PT media.
Uh-huh. Thanks for the confirmation I'm not going doolally. That is exactly as I read it. WOW!!
-
Well that's a relief. Goodness knows how much longer it would have dragged on through an appeal process.
Though with a 7 - nil decision, I can't see how it would have succeeded .
Time to settle any money owing to anyone.
I think they should go for it. They've lost their shirt and their dignity - there's nothing left to lose (apart from the much-extended mansion).
They may have to jump back on the ching ching train; interviews, Oprah, Dr. Phil, another book, T shirts, mugs. A podcast?
-
Uh-huh. Thanks for the confirmation I'm not going doolally. That is exactly as I read it. WOW!!
Frankly it doesn't matter how you read it. Its over and done with - subject to an appeal that apparently isn't going to happen.
-
I think they should go for it. They've lost their shirt and their dignity - there's nothing left to lose (apart from the much-extended mansion).
They may have to jump back on the ching ching train; interviews, Oprah, Dr. Phil, another book, T shirts, mugs. A podcast?
Mugs ? Plenty of them around to eagerly buy up the merchandise.
-
Mugs ? Plenty of them around to eagerly buy up the merchandise.
Excellent.
-
Far be it for me to be the spanner in the ointment, but that's not technically correct.
Says you and whose Army?
-
I guess as soon as HCW is sacked he can write a bestselling book claiming CB dunnit even if the investigation into the latter is dropped. That’s his pension fund sorted anyway.
Nah... he hasn't got it in him.
-
According to this there will be no appeal.
Contacted by Expresso, Ricardo Correia Afonso said that the couple's defense will not appeal the decision of the European court.
https://expresso.pt/sociedade/2022-09-20-Casal-McCann-naturalmente-desapontado-com-a-decisao-do-Tribunal-dos-Direitos-do-Homem-9ff3de47
A sensible decision. Maybe now they can get on with searching albeit 15 years too late.
-
Nah... he hasn't got it in him.
I actually predicted this very thing some time ago. The book is inevitable.
-
I think anything goes now, say what you like about whom you like, who cares anyway. Bruckner abducted Madeleine and murdered her and I don't care what anyone says or what evidence there is to the contrary - if I want to say it I shall.
I doubt it very much. Brückner has no prior of murdering anyone so leopard and spots comes to mind.
-
Nah... he hasn't got it in him.
Coupled with a sense of honour no doubt. But then Amaral never had any honour to lose.
-
A sensible decision. Maybe now they can get on with searching albeit 15 years too late.
As their concept of searching is to get others to do it for them, that'll be a non-starter.
As Spammy said earlier, now that Wolters has declared her dead, nobody is going to bother any more.
-
Coupled with a sense of honour no doubt. But then Amaral never had any honour to lose.
yesterday's man. Why do you waste time on him ?
-
I doubt it very much. Brückner has no prior of murdering anyone so leopard and spots comes to mind.
So no one ever murdered anyone for the first time?
-
yesterday's man. Why do you waste time on him ?
I wasn't aware that I do. But I am interested in what Amaral will do next. No Dreadlocks, obviously.
Sheesh, this is going to be a nightmare.
-
No grounds for appeal IMO. Seeing most insisted it involved GA...an not portugal GA has just won the mccs again in that case.
Just as the case it seems was shelved because of lack of evidence....not that there was no evidence or they were innocent of any involvement.
Article 6 complaint _ Not even admissible in court. [ They use the words manifestly ill-founded ... and, as such, inadmissible.
Article 8 complaint - admissible, but rejected on the simple grounds that the Supreme Court did NOT say they were guilty.
It merely pointed out that the decision to shelve the case was on the grounds of insufficient evidence.
The irony is that the Obiter statement came after they had Appealed to the Supreme Court to reverse its OWN judgment.
They trod on the tail of the serpent, and it turned and bit them.
Just is case there are any McCann supporters reading this, the Obiter said this
"“"It should not be said that the appellants were cleared via the ruling announcing the archiving of the criminal case. In truth, that ruling was not made in virtue of Portugal's Public Prosecution Service having acquired the conviction that the appellants hadn’t committed a crime.
"The archiving of the case was determined by the fact that public prosecutors hadn't managed to
obtain sufficient evidence of the practice of crimes by the appellants.
"There is therefore a significant, and not merely a semantic difference, between the legally
admissible foundations of the archive ruling. It doesn't therefore seem acceptable that the ruling,
based on the insufficiency of evidence, should be equated to proof of innocence."
They added: "It's true that the aforementioned criminal inquiry ended up being archived, namely
because none of the apparent evidence that led to the appellants being made 'arguidos' was
subsequently confirmed or consolidated.
"However even the archive ruling raises serious concerns relating to the truth of the allegation that
Madeleine was kidnapped."
-
I wasn't aware that I do. But I am interested in what Amaral will do next. No Dreadlocks, obviously.
Sheesh, this is going to be a nightmare.
Titchmarsh I reckon.
-
I wasn't aware that I do. But I am interested in what Amaral will do next. No Dreadlocks, obviously.
Sheesh, this is going to be a nightmare.
Another book, a few rounds of TV interviews & he's probably old enough to cash his police pension pot by now.
-
Sheesh, this is going to be a nightmare.
For who ?
-
Nah... he hasn't got it in him.
What do you know about him that I don't?
-
I doubt it very much. Brückner has no prior of murdering anyone so leopard and spots comes to mind.
Oh dear, not this spurious argument again. Jeez Louise, gimme a break... *%87
-
For who ?
Does it matter for whom? Most people don't sexually abuse small children or rape old women. Although there seems to have been a preponderance of that going on in Portugal.
The nightmare from this ruling is still to be felt.
-
No grounds for appeal IMO. Seeing most insisted it involved GA...an not portugal GA has just won the mccs again in that case.
Just as the case it seems was shelved because of lack of evidence....not that there was no evidence or they were innocent of any involvement.
Article 6 complaint _ Not even admissible in court. [ They use the words manifestly ill-founded ... and, as such, inadmissible.
Article 8 complaint - admissible, but rejected on the simple grounds that the Supreme Court did NOT say they were guilty.
It merely pointed out that the decision to shelve the case was on the grounds of insufficient evidence.
The irony is that the Obiter statement came after they had Appealed to the Supreme Court to reverse its OWN judgment.
They trod on the tail of the serpent, and it turned and bit them.
Just is case there are any McCann supporters reading this, the Obiter said this
"“"It should not be said that the appellants were cleared via the ruling announcing the archiving of the criminal case. In truth, that ruling was not made in virtue of Portugal's Public Prosecution Service having acquired the conviction that the appellants hadn’t committed a crime.
"The archiving of the case was determined by the fact that public prosecutors hadn't managed to
obtain sufficient evidence of the practice of crimes by the appellants.
"There is therefore a significant, and not merely a semantic difference, between the legally
admissible foundations of the archive ruling. It doesn't therefore seem acceptable that the ruling,
based on the insufficiency of evidence, should be equated to proof of innocence."
They added: "It's true that the aforementioned criminal inquiry ended up being archived, namely
because none of the apparent evidence that led to the appellants being made 'arguidos' was
subsequently confirmed or consolidated.
"However even the archive ruling raises serious concerns relating to the truth of the allegation that
Madeleine was kidnapped."
It doesn't matter now, the McCanns are not being investigated and the police of three countries are investigating a stranger abduction. The McCanns will never again be suspects in their child's disappearance (for any McCann sceptics who think today's news means that they will be reinvestigated for this crime).
-
Does it matter for whom? Most people don't sexually abuse small children or rape old women. Although there seems to have been a preponderance of that going on in Portugal.
The nightmare from this ruling is still to be felt.
Indeed they don't but the ruling as nothing to do with CB.
-
Does it matter for whom? Most people don't sexually abuse small children or rape old women. Although there seems to have been a preponderance of that going on in Portugal.
The nightmare from this ruling is still to be felt.
So what are you anticipating as a result of this ruling exactly?
-
So what are you anticipating as a result of this ruling exactly?
I think the nightmare might be that McCann is going to have to stump up and pay outstanding bills. ?{)(**
-
Indeed they don't but the ruling as nothing to do with CB.
That's the next big event.
When Wolters whips out the concrete evidence.
Sceptics will have egg on their faces then. Not right now though. Sceptic faces are looking pretty peachy & egg free at the moment.
-
I think the nightmare might be that McCann is going to have to stump up and pay outstanding bills. ?{)(**
Yeah, I keep having nightmares about it, how will I ever sleep again? I really don't know... 8(8-))
-
Yeah, I keep having nightmares about it, how will I ever sleep again? I really don't know... 8(8-))
Sedative Drugs?
-
‘ you really need to listen to someone who knows what they are talking about..thats me. i probably know more about the court and ECHR case than anyone else on any forum...including poulton...brown...the P resident......eevry one of them.
first the SC did not rule on whether the book was libellous....and the SC did noy say the mcCanns havent been proved innocece...yhey simply gave their opinion on the balance of rights re article 8 and 10....and they got it wrong and i can tell you why.
this case is all about amaral rights under articla 10 and the McCanns rights under article 8.
If you look at how the ECHR decide one of the major points is the veraciity of the claims ...in this case those made by amaral
The portuguese court made a mistake...even the court of the first instance...they said they were not there to consider the veracity of amarals claims..they would not let Gerry present his arguments re the dogs which would have shown amarals claims were not based on facts.....but on lies...thats contrary to the ECHRs stance...major error by portugal.
the mcCanns have quoted Springer vs Germnay where the ECHR ruked in favour of free speech...peter mac...who must be a bit thick on the CMOMM site says he cant understand why the Mcs have cited a case where Free speech was ruled more important....i understand...it sbecause the claims were true and proved in court.
so the ECHR will look at the evidence and see whether amaral was right to pronounce the mccanns guilty...the dogs etc...they will look at that and may even give their opinions on them. the archiving despatch said none of the evidence used to make the mccans guilty was confirmed..its in the files. so amaral is nmaking claims with no evidence to support them.
Based on all this I cannot see any way the ECHR will not find in the McCanns favour’
The above never gets old!
-
‘ you really need to listen to someone who knows what they are talking about..thats me. i probably know more about the court and ECHR case than anyone else on any forum...including poulton...brown...the P resident......eevry one of them.
first the SC did not rule on whether the book was libellous....and the SC did noy say the mcCanns havent been proved innocece...yhey simply gave their opinion on the balance of rights re article 8 and 10....and they got it wrong and i can tell you why.
this case is all about amaral rights under articla 10 and the McCanns rights under article 8.
If you look at how the ECHR decide one of the major points is the veraciity of the claims ...in this case those made by amaral
The portuguese court made a mistake...even the court of the first instance...they said they were not there to consider the veracity of amarals claims..they would not let Gerry present his arguments re the dogs which would have shown amarals claims were not based on facts.....but on lies...thats contrary to the ECHRs stance...major error by portugal.
the mcCanns have quoted Springer vs Germnay where the ECHR ruked in favour of free speech...peter mac...who must be a bit thick on the CMOMM site says he cant understand why the Mcs have cited a case where Free speech was ruled more important....i understand...it sbecause the claims were true and proved in court.
so the ECHR will look at the evidence and see whether amaral was right to pronounce the mccanns guilty...the dogs etc...they will look at that and may even give their opinions on them. the archiving despatch said none of the evidence used to make the mccans guilty was confirmed..its in the files. so amaral is nmaking claims with no evidence to support them.
Based on all this I cannot see any way the ECHR will not find in the McCanns favour’
The above never gets old!
Hello Gloaty McGloatface! (ty6e[
-
‘ you really need to listen to someone who knows what they are talking about..thats me. i probably know more about the court and ECHR case than anyone else on any forum...including poulton...brown...the P resident......eevry one of them.
first the SC did not rule on whether the book was libellous....and the SC did noy say the mcCanns havent been proved innocece...yhey simply gave their opinion on the balance of rights re article 8 and 10....and they got it wrong and i can tell you why.
this case is all about amaral rights under articla 10 and the McCanns rights under article 8.
If you look at how the ECHR decide one of the major points is the veraciity of the claims ...in this case those made by amaral
The portuguese court made a mistake...even the court of the first instance...they said they were not there to consider the veracity of amarals claims..they would not let Gerry present his arguments re the dogs which would have shown amarals claims were not based on facts.....but on lies...thats contrary to the ECHRs stance...major error by portugal.
the mcCanns have quoted Springer vs Germnay where the ECHR ruked in favour of free speech...peter mac...who must be a bit thick on the CMOMM site says he cant understand why the Mcs have cited a case where Free speech was ruled more important....i understand...it sbecause the claims were true and proved in court.
so the ECHR will look at the evidence and see whether amaral was right to pronounce the mccanns guilty...the dogs etc...they will look at that and may even give their opinions on them. the archiving despatch said none of the evidence used to make the mccans guilty was confirmed..its in the files. so amaral is nmaking claims with no evidence to support them.
Based on all this I cannot see any way the ECHR will not find in the McCanns favour’
The above never gets old!
Now don't tell me, let me guess who said that @)(++(*
Not here yet - too busy shopping, perchance.
-
Hello Gloaty McGloatface! (ty6e[
He’s a rude little man who has had his pomposity pricked….what’s not to love?
-
He’s a rude little man who has had his pomposity pricked….what’s not to love?
Let's not be goading now.
Give the man time to explain why today's ruling is wrong.
-
He’s a rude little man who has had his pomposity pricked….what’s not to love?
he's entitled to his opinion just like the rest of us and it's not like you've never been wrong before so....
PS: doesn't calling him a rude little man make you a rude little woman?
-
He’s a rude little man who has had his pomposity pricked….what’s not to love?
The cringe is strong in this one.
The author, whomever it is, must've surely have cringed in to nothing more than a hairy husk at this point; a mere pork scratching.
He / she / they may have to be rehydrated and reanimation attempted just to appear able to propegate some semblance of life.
-
The cringe is strong in this one.
The author, whomever it is, must've surely have cringed in to nothing more than a hairy husk at this point; a mere pork scratching.
He / she / they may have to be rehydrated and reanimation attempted just to appear able to propegate some semblance of life.
Maybe another name change would be in order.
-
he's entitled to his opinion just like the rest of us and it's not like you've never been wrong before so....
PS: doesn't calling him a rude little man make you a rude little woman?
Of course he’s allowed his opinion….and we’re allowed to point it out when he gets things catastrophically wrong.
Perhaps a period of humility on his part would be fitting?
-
Of course he’s allowed his opinion….and we’re allowed to point it out when he gets things catastrophically wrong.
Perhaps a period of humility on his part would be fitting?
Who are we talking about for goodness sake?
Who has got it so paradigm shiftingly wrong that the Oxford English Dictionary convened and has decided to revise the description and previous parameters of wrongness?
-
He’s a rude little man who has had his pomposity pricked….what’s not to love?
You have previously described me as a successful man with a beautiful wife...you were right the first time
-
Maybe another name change would be in order.
Oooh....a clue!
.....someone who's changed their name.....come man, think dammit! [thuds heel of hand against temple in frutration]
-
You have previously described me as a successful man with a beautiful wife...you were right the first time
Unlike you.
-
I have replied but it doesn't seem to have posted.
My reasoning was based on the veracity of amarals claims.
Have any you read the judgement.
We all know amarals thesis was based on junk....it's there in his book.
The ECHR decided that his valued judgement was based on facts.
They are wrong..we all know that j
-
I have replied but it doesn't seem to have posted.
My reasoning was based on the veracity of amarals claims.
Have any you read the judgement.
We all know amarals thesis was based on junk....it's there in his book.
The ECHR decided that his valued judgement was based on facts.
They are wrong..we all know that j
Give it up mate. This ship has dipped over the horizon.
-
Does it matter for whom? Most people don't sexually abuse small children or rape old women. Although there seems to have been a preponderance of that going on in Portugal.
The nightmare from this ruling is still to be felt.
In terms of rulings this one was never significant. Dragging Article 6:2 into the case in Portugal was merely a ploy in my opinion. It wasn't applicable, as pointed out by the Portuguese Supreme Court and confirmed by the ECHR.
As to the defamation accusation, it was obvious that the McCann's reputation was shredded before Amaral's book saw the light of day.
-
You have previously described me as a successful man with a beautiful wife...you were right the first time
Are you striving to see how wrong you can be in one day…if so well done.
-
Give it up mate. This ship has dipped over the horizon.
I was asked for my reasoning and supplied it..probably over your and most heads
-
I was asked for my reasoning and supplied it..probably over your and most heads
Probably.
But you were wrong, right?
-
Did not the ECHR just deliver a ruling on the primacy of the Freedom of speech. Or do you think that is for those and such as those.
In this case, they did. Insofar as they ruled that in this case Portugal was correct, and Amaral, while exercising his freedom of speech, didn't defame the McCanns. Had he done so then Article 8 would have had primacy.
-
In this case, they did. Insofar as they ruled that in this case Portugal was correct, and Amaral, while exercising his freedom of speech, didn't defame the McCanns. Had he done so then Article 8 would have had primacy.
Can you point out where they said there was no defamation....if there was none there would be no right to balance
-
I think they should go for it. They've lost their shirt and their dignity - there's nothing left to lose (apart from the much-extended mansion).
They may have to jump back on the ching ching train; interviews, Oprah, Dr. Phil, another book, T shirts, mugs. A podcast?
What much extended mansion?
I have been there and it is a larger than average house thta would be usual with any Dr and Professer. Please do not exagerate.
It is the Courts that have lost their dignity not The Maccanns. Anyone who has followed this case will know how they have allowed lies to influence them.
My dear old Dad always used to say
The Law is an Ass
He was right
-
Of course he’s allowed his opinion….and we’re allowed to point it out when he gets things catastrophically wrong.
Perhaps a period of humility on his part would be fitting?
There's pointing it out, and then there's revelling in it (which you and your fellow gloaters clearly are) so enjoy it while it lasts, and then perhaps take your own advice and learn to conduct yourself with some humility too? Just a thought...
-
What much extended mansion?
I have been there and it is a larger than average house thta would be usual with any Dr and Professer. Please do not exagerate.
It is the Courts that have lost their dignity not The Maccanns. Anyone who has followed this case will know how they have allowed lies to influence them.
My dear old Dad always used to say
The Law is an Ass
He was right
You've been to Gerry McCann's house? I want to ask why, but sort of don't at the same time.
-
You've been to Gerry McCann's house? I want to ask why, but sort of don't at the same time.
Don't worry, he didn't let her in.
-
Indeed they don't but the ruling as nothing to do with CB.
I think that you will find that I said that 24 hours ago.
-
There's pointing it out, and then there's revelling in it (which you and your fellow gloaters clearly are) so enjoy it while it lasts, and then perhaps take your own advice and learn to conduct yourself with some humility too? Just a thought...
Marvellous…now off you tootle.
-
In terms of rulings this one was never significant. Dragging Article 6:2 into the case in Portugal was merely a ploy in my opinion. It wasn't applicable, as pointed out by the Portuguese Supreme Court and confirmed by the ECHR.
As to the defamation accusation, it was obvious that the McCann's reputation was shredded before Amaral's book saw the light of day.
Have The McCanns been arrested yet?
-
Have The McCanns been arrested yet?
What for? Using inadequate lawyers who tried to drag Article 6:2 into a case in Portugal, a move which was always manifestly ill-founded?
-
There's pointing it out, and then there's revelling in it (which you and your fellow gloaters clearly are) so enjoy it while it lasts, and then perhaps take your own advice and learn to conduct yourself with some humility too? Just a thought...
I don't really care about anyone showing humility...
-
What for? Using inadequate lawyers who tried to drag Article 6:2 into a case in Portugal, a move which was always manifestly ill-founded?
I agree...inadequate lawyers...obviously didn't pick up on the point that amarals claims were not based on fact...would have done better letting me handle it
-
Have The McCanns been arrested yet?
Sarcasm aside, your question may prove moderately prescient - bear with me - I'm not suggesting anything as dramatic as that, but I do think this absurd, ill-advised albatross of an appeal being dragged to its inevitable foundering will have a liberating effect on other facets of the case.
Quite what that will manifest as remains to be seen, but these landmark judgements, certainly ones with such scathing finality, often create ripples of opportunity, some of which may be case related.
What is certain, is that MCCANN AND HEALY v. PORTUGAL will serve, not only as a test case to be referred to as a benchmark, but also as a deterrent to the optimistically foolhardy and the deluded alike for generations.
-
What for? Using inadequate lawyers who tried to drag Article 6:2 into a case in Portugal, a move which was always manifestly ill-founded?
Blame The Lawyers. That's always a good one. Presuming that you know what you are talking about. Which you mostly don't.
-
I agree...inadequate lawyers...obviously didn't pick up on the point that amarals claims were not based on fact...would have done better letting me handle it
That's always a good one. Presuming that you know what you are talking about. Which you mostly don't.
-
Marvellous…now off you tootle.
I ain’t going nowhere lovey… 8**8:/:
-
That's always a good one. Presuming that you know what you are talking about. Which you mostly don't.
Big Fail.
-
Big Fail.
I admit it. I was wrong. I embedded a quote within a quote without leaving the requisite spaces for XHTML reply formatting.
I'm man enough to at least admit to being wrong. Not pork scratching wrong, but wrong nevertheless.
-
I agree...inadequate lawyers...obviously didn't pick up on the point that amarals claims were not based on fact...would have done better letting me handle it
Always somebody else's fault, any how I reviewed the estate agents visit did you not see it.
-
That's always a good one. Presuming that you know what you are talking about. Which you mostly don't.
I was in court about 4 weeks ago in a civil case as a defendant. Just me...the judge and a barrister for the plaintiff...I won..judge found in my favour
-
I agree...inadequate lawyers...obviously didn't pick up on the point that amarals claims were not based on fact...would have done better letting me handle it
You still clinging to that are you? They were the facts of the investigation whether you accept that or not.
-
You still clinging to that are you? They were the facts of the investigation whether you accept that or not.
So you.agree his opinion was not based on true facts p
-
Blame The Lawyers. That's always a good one. Presuming that you know what you are talking about. Which you mostly don't.
I know that no-one breached the McCann's rights under Article 6:2 pf the ECHR, so you can stop saying that they did.
-
That's always a good one. Presuming that you know what you are talking about. Which you mostly don't.
[/quote
I was in court about 4 weeks ago in a civil case as a defendant. Just me...the judge and a barrister for the plaintiff...I won..judge found in my favour
You’re a bit of a legal titan, supposedly, in real life….a bit of a joke here.
Care to explain the disparity?
-
I know that no-one breached the McCann's rights under Article 6:2 pf the ECHR, so you can stop saying that they did.
Maybe the McCanns were ill advised, or maybe, just maybe they ignored their lawyer's advice and steamed ahead anyway.
Whatever, they lost.
-
You still clinging to that are you? They were the facts of the investigation whether you accept that or not.
The fact is that the 'facts of the investigation' demonstrate nothing more or less than exactly how botched 'the investigation' was up until the time Amaral was sacked from it.
Similarly Sandra Felgueiras has put into the public domain who the source of many of the 'facts' was.
-
The fact is that the 'facts of the investigation' demonstrate nothing more or less than exactly how botched 'the investigation' was up until the time Amaral was sacked from it.
Similarly Sandra Felgueiras has put into the public domain who the source of many of the 'facts' was.
Does it matter any more? The Germans are in control now - not that they seem to be making much progress
-
So you.agree his opinion was not based on true facts p
The only person who thought they had to be true was you.
-
The fact is that the 'facts of the investigation' demonstrate nothing more or less than exactly how botched 'the investigation' was up until the time Amaral was sacked from it.
Similarly Sandra Felgueiras has put into the public domain who the source of many of the 'facts' was.
Poor Sandra….still smarting at putting all her money on the wrong horse.
-
Maybe the McCanns were ill advised, or maybe, just maybe they ignored their lawyer's advice and steamed ahead anyway.
Whatever, they lost.
It's one of the two. Or perhaps sheer conceit, given that they found that 'their complaint concerning their right to be presumed innocent was "manifestly ill-founded" '. That's scathing. That's gonna leave a mark in the morning.
Almost as cringe-inducing as David Grey's proclamation.
-
Poor Sandra….still smarting at putting all her money on the wrong horse.
She'll, IMHAEO, be swapping horses like Frankie Dettori again next week. Anything for airtime.
-
The only person who thought they had to be true was you.
yes, why on earth should facts be true, when any fule no facts can be made up to suit.
-
Does it matter any more? The Germans are in control now - not that they seem to be making much progress
I rather think events have overtaken the mistakes of the past so I don't think it has mattered for quite some time.
2017 is a long time ago when this action was started, there's been a lot of water under the bridge since then.
-
yes, why on earth should facts be true, when any fule no facts can be made up to suit.
Using the Enigma Machine again, I see.
CONSTANTINOPLE
-
The only person who thought they had to be true was you.
Total rubbish..but I don't expect anything else
The ECHR use the word veracity...that means truth.
-
Total rubbish..but I don't expect anything else
The ECHR use the word veracity...that means truth.
Brilliant….here have a pencil.
-
The fact is that the 'facts of the investigation' demonstrate nothing more or less than exactly how botched 'the investigation' was up until the time Amaral was sacked from it.
Similarly Sandra Felgueiras has put into the public domain who the source of many of the 'facts' was.
The point is that they were the facts, not why they were the facts.
-
Total rubbish..but I don't expect anything else
The ECHR use the word veracity...that means truth.
Could be construed as 'aligned to' or 'truthfullness'. Not quite as unequivocal as 'axiomatic'. Not an absolute.
-
Gloating Portuguese cop says the McCanns 'are still suspects' in the disappearance of Madeleine hours after the family lose libel legal battle against his book
The McCanns reacted to their court defeat by admitting they were 'naturally disappointed' at the decision but insisting they had no regrets about pursuing their long and arduous legal battle.
They said it meant the focus was now 'rightly' on the search for Madeleine and her abductors.
Hours later, Amaral was on Portuguese radio, insisting: 'Today the court referred once again to an important question.
'The couple are suspects, were suspects and remain suspects. Nothing else happened to the contrary.'
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11231591/Gloating-Portuguese-cop-says-McCanns-suspects-disappearance-Madeleine.html
The absolutely perfect example as to why the ECHR judges erred in their judgement.
-
The only person who thought they had to be true was you.
So you think the fact that amsral and the PJ were incompetent...gives him the right to libel the. Mccanns
-
Gloating Portuguese cop says the McCanns 'are still suspects' in the disappearance of Madeleine hours after the family lose libel legal battle against his book
The McCanns reacted to their court defeat by admitting they were 'naturally disappointed' at the decision but insisting they had no regrets about pursuing their long and arduous legal battle.
They said it meant the focus was now 'rightly' on the search for Madeleine and her abductors.
Hours later, Amaral was on Portuguese radio, insisting: 'Today the court referred once again to an important question.
'The couple are suspects, were suspects and remain suspects. Nothing else happened to the contrary.'
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11231591/Gloating-Portuguese-cop-says-McCanns-suspects-disappearance-Madeleine.html
The absolutely perfect example as to why the ECHR judges erred in their judgement.
They erred? All 7 seasoned judges? It ruled it shouldn't have even been put in front of them. It was dismissed from their presence in an almost unprecedented manner.
DR Snr Amaral is right. He's also quoting facts.
-
So you think the fact that amsral and the PJ were incompetent...gives him the right to libel the. Mccanns
Reaching and moonwalking at the same time. Novel.
do do do do do do do do......do do....do..do.....do..do....
-
So you think the fact that amsral and the PJ were incompetent...gives him the right to libel the. Mccanns
Its over , Accept the verdict and move on.
-
Total rubbish..but I don't expect anything else
The ECHR use the word veracity...that means truth.
Everything you have said has been discredited. Imo your only impressive attribute is your ego.
-
The point is that they were the facts, not why they were the facts.
Yes the dog barked.
But what exactly did the dog bark at.
Mistakes were made and the fact that they were alleged to be true even after they had been acknowledged as mistakes quite simply does not magically make them true
-
They erred? All 7 seasoned judges? It ruled it shouldn't have even been put in front of them. It was dismissed from their presence in an almost unprecedented manner.
DR Snr Amaral is right. He's also quoting facts.
Its an international conspiracy of the judiciary to do the McCanns down don't you know
-
Its over , Accept the verdict and move on.
That was never going to happen. There's an all enveloping miasma of abject denial emanating from the opposite camp and nobody has started drinking yet. I think.
-
Its over , Accept the verdict and move on.
The verdict is for none here to accept or reject, that decision lies entirely with the McCanns and they have announced their choice.
-
Yes the dog barked.
But what exactly did the dog bark at.
Mistakes were made and the fact that they were alleged to be true even after they had been acknowledged as mistakes quite simply does not magically make them true
None of the specifics matter; it's an overarching decision based on overarching previous decisions. It's over. It's all gone now. You're clinging to the wreckage of a ship called Delusion.
-
The verdict is for none here to accept or reject, that decision lies entirely with the McCanns and they have announced their choice.
I've accepted it.
-
The verdict is for none here to accept or reject, that decision lies entirely with the McCanns and they have announced their choice.
If you wish to be bitter over this verdict for the rest of your life feel free.
It will change nothing.
-
If you wish to be bitter over this verdict for the rest of your life feel free.
It will change nothing.
I think quite often you are the one who forgets that this is a discussion forum and I doubt anyone will experience a life changing moment as a result of voicing an opinion on it ~ least of all me.
-
If you wish to be bitter over this verdict for the rest of your life feel free.
It will change nothing.
I have a bottle of Lagavulin that I've been saving for the death of a despised celebrity, or plague to infect Putin's inner circle, stuff like that. I think I will rejoice in this decision and crack it open and toast those Magnificent Seven; the faceless legal soothsayers whose names I'm sure I could find out quite readily, but simply can't be arsed to. They know who they are, that's all that matters. I might go and buy a cravat from TK Maxx.
-
I think quite often you are the one who forgets that this is a discussion forum and I doubt anyone will experience a life changing moment as a result of voicing an opinion on it ~ least of all me.
I have. Today I found out Sadie went to Gerry's house once. That shifted my entire mindset.
-
I have a bottle of Lagavulin that I've been saving for the death of a despised celebrity, or plague to infect Putin's inner circle, stuff like that. I think I will rejoice in this decision and crack it open a toast those Magnificent Seven; the faceless legal soothsayers whose names I'm sure I could find out quite readily, but simply can't be arsed to. They know who they are, that's all that matters. I might go and buy a cravat from TK Maxx.
I have an inner glow of satisfaction that I shall be reinforcing later with a couple of Irish whiskies ?{)(**
-
I have. Today I found out Sadie went to Gerry's house once. That shifted my entire mindset.
Isn't that called stalking ? There are laws against that.
-
Gloating Portuguese cop says the McCanns 'are still suspects' in the disappearance of Madeleine hours after the family lose libel legal battle against his book
The McCanns reacted to their court defeat by admitting they were 'naturally disappointed' at the decision but insisting they had no regrets about pursuing their long and arduous legal battle.
They said it meant the focus was now 'rightly' on the search for Madeleine and her abductors.
Hours later, Amaral was on Portuguese radio, insisting: 'Today the court referred once again to an important question.
'The couple are suspects, were suspects and remain suspects. Nothing else happened to the contrary.'
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11231591/Gloating-Portuguese-cop-says-McCanns-suspects-disappearance-Madeleine.html
The absolutely perfect example as to why the ECHR judges erred in their judgement.
Perhaps one of Amaral’s supporters could highlight the bit in the ECHR ruling which states that the McCanns are still suspects? I’m guessing after today’s ruling Amaral will say whatever he likes, and as loudly as he likes no matter how factually incorrect he is, and will be loudly applauded by those who support him despite them knowing he is talking bollocks.
-
I have an inner glow of satisfaction that I shall be reinforcing later with a couple of Irish whiskies ?{)(**
Ahhh, there's nothing like a couple of Jamieson's to augment the glow of success.
Chin chin.
-
Still, if the McCanns are suspects at least it means we can continually ask if they’ve been charged yet simply to wum. I wonder who is investigating them and for how long? Shouldn’t be much longer now….
-
Perhaps one of Amaral’s supporters could highlight the bit in the ECHR ruling which states that the McCanns are still suspects? I’m guessing after today’s ruling Amaral will say whatever he likes, and as loudly as he likes no matter how factually incorrect he is, and will be loudly applauded by those who support him despite them knowing he is talking bollocks.
You've got it. He's now essentially the Oracle of Portimao. Dr Snr Oracle Goncalo Armando Amaral.
You can throw a bit of Nostradamus in there too. He predicted this. He's been biding his time. David Gray wanted to know why he was keeping out of the limelight - this is why. He knew.
-
Perhaps one of Amaral’s supporters could highlight the bit in the ECHR ruling which states that the McCanns are still suspects? I’m guessing after today’s ruling Amaral will say whatever he likes, and as loudly as he likes no matter how factually incorrect he is, and will be loudly applauded by those who support him despite them knowing he is talking bollocks.
This can only get worse.
-
I have replied but it doesn't seem to have posted.
My reasoning was based on the veracity of amarals claims.
Have any you read the judgement.
We all know amarals thesis was based on junk....it's there in his book.
The ECHR decided that his valued judgement was based on facts.
They are wrong..we all know that j
No, they are right and you are wrong Davel. You were always wrong when you posted day after day that the McCanns would win the libel case and you were wrong when you claimed that the ECHR would rule in their favour.
Do us all a favour now Davel and accept you were 100% WRONG!
-
No, they are right and you are wrong Davel. You were always wrong when you posted day after day that the McCanns would win the libel case and you were wrong when you claimed that the ECHR would rule in their favour.
Do us all a favour now Davel and accept you were 100% WRONG!
Fat chance. Davel is never wrong - even when he is
-
I can't hold it back any longer.
For those who thought McCann would win.
Haw Haw Haw @)(++(*
-
A source close to the pair told MailOnline they are 'disappointed' and are reviewing their legal options.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11231591/Gloating-Portuguese-cop-says-McCanns-suspects-disappearance-Madeleine.html
-
No, they are right and you are wrong Davel. You were always wrong when you posted day after day that the McCanns would win the libel case and you were wrong when you claimed that the ECHR would rule in their favour.
Do us all a favour now Davel and accept you were 100% WRONG!
I'm right..
-
I can't hold it back any longer.
For those who thought McCann would win.
Haw Haw Haw @)(++(*
Well done for exercising such admirable restraint - almost the full 12 hours! Have a pencil (I think that’s the usual prize around these parts).
-
Well done for exercising such admirable restraint - almost the full 12 hours! Have a pencil (I think that’s the usual prize around these parts).
No, I wouldn't recommend using a pencil around your parts.
-
This is all heading in the right direction as far as I can see. Amaral will hoist himself in the end.
-
This is all heading in the right direction as far as I can see. Amaral will hoist himself in the end.
Ever hopeful....
-
Ever hopeful....
Have The McCanns been arrested yet? No? Any minute now then.
-
Ever hopeful....
Do you not understand that what he is saying now is libellous
-
This is all heading in the right direction as far as I can see. Amaral will hoist himself in the end.
What direction would that be ?
-
What direction would that be ?
Upwards by the scruff of his neck.
-
Upwards by the scruff of his neck.
? *%87
-
? *%87
Petard.
-
Do you not understand that what he is saying now is libellous
That would be interesting.
He claims the McCanns are suspects & presumably to refute this the police would be required to swear under oath that they most definitely aren't.
-
Petard.
I think you misspelled my name.
-
Right, that's enough gloating & goading for one day.
Let's get back to having a very serious & sensible discussion about Madeleine's abduction please.
I'll start.
Was she even abducted?
-
Right, that's enough gloating & goading for one day.
Let's get back to having a very serious & sensible discussion about Madeleine's abduction please.
I'll start.
Was she even abducted?
AW shucks and just when I was getting into the swing of it . ?8)@)-)
-
And meanwhile over on their Facebook page the parents are, as expected, peddling their brand of the truth. They claim that they started legal action 13 years ago because they were afraid that if people believed Amaral then they wouldn’t search for Madeleine. This isn’t strictly true. The original court action may have been justified by this excuse but not their application to the ECHR in 2017, at a time when OG and the Portuguese investigations had been running for 6 years and Amaral’s book was only ever really spoken about in relation to legal action brought about by the parents.
Whether it was to delay paying costs or simply to rehabilitate their reputations, one thing their application to the ECHR wasn’t about and that was the search for their daughter.
-
And meanwhile over on their Facebook page the parents are, as expected, peddling their brand of the truth. They claim that they started legal action 13 years ago because they were afraid that if people believed Amaral then they wouldn’t search for Madeleine. This isn’t strictly true. The original court action may have been justified by this excuse but not their application to the ECHR in 2017, at a time when OG and the Portuguese investigations had been running for 6 years and Amaral’s book was only ever really spoken about in relation to legal action brought about by the parents.
Whether it was to delay paying costs or simply to rehabilitate their reputations, one thing their application to the ECHR wasn’t about and that was the search for their daughter.
I seem to remember Amaral saying, after a previous judgement, that if they really are looking for their
missing daughter, it is not in the Portuguese civil courts that they will find her.
She wasn't in the ECHR either.
-
Do you not understand that what he is saying now is libellous
Poppycock - imo.
-
Poppycock - imo.
Are you able to offer an explanation as to why saying the mccanns are still suspects is not libelous..... Or like all the other sceptics are you reduced to childish name calling y
-
Hello Gloaty McGloatface! (ty6e[
@)(++(* @)(++(* @)(++(* &%54% ...if ever there was a time it's right now.
-
Are you able to offer an explanation as to why saying the mccanns are still suspects is not libelous..... Or like all the other sceptics are you reduced to childish name calling y
Because they are still suspects?
-
Do you not understand that what he is saying now is libellous
Give it 6 years and a couple of appeals and we could find out.
-
I seem to remember Amaral saying, after a previous judgement, that if they really are looking for their
missing daughter, it is not in the Portuguese civil courts that they will find her.
She wasn't in the ECHR either.
Going jogging was more important.
-
Going jogging was more important.
...& the chat show circuit.
-
This is from the judgement..
. Given the traces found in the car, the little girl had to be transported there.
(...)
The ECHR ruled that Amaral's opinion was based on facts... Absolute rubbish
-
This is from the judgement..
. Given the traces found in the car, the little girl had to be transported there.
(...)
The ECHR ruled that Amaral's opinion was based on facts... Absolute rubbish
The second ruling noted, iirc, that where the author differed from the files was in his interpretation of said facts & the conclusions he reached from them.
Biological traces were found in the car, Amaral deduced from this that she may have been transported in there.
That's a fact.
-
This is from the judgement..
. Given the traces found in the car, the little girl had to be transported there.
(...)
The ECHR ruled that Amaral's opinion was based on facts... Absolute rubbish
Yes but as G-Unit has explained facts don’t need to be true… *%87
-
Yes but as G-Unit has explained facts don’t need to be true… *%87
It seems gunit doesn't understand the meaning of the word veracity... Which is what the ECHR say is important
-
Yes but as G-Unit has explained facts don’t need to be true… *%87
It's true biological traces were found in the boot, Eddie alerted to the car also.
From this, Amaral & his team deduced, reasonably, that Maddie may have been transported in there.
That's a fact.
Whether she really was or not is irrelevant to the legal ruling.
-
Yes but as G-Unit has explained facts don’t need to be true… *%87
And this is a Fact.
-
So if Wolters says CB is guilty that makes it a fact
-
So if Wolters says CB is guilty that makes it a fact
The Sceptics don't get it I'm afraid. But never mind.
-
The Sceptics don't get it I'm afraid. But never mind.
Ironically that’s exactly what Davel believes.
-
So if Wolters says CB is guilty that makes it a fact
Yes if he writes it up in an official report then it becomes a fact. Not necessarily a true fact, just a bog standard “might be true might not be true” fact.
-
Ironically that’s exactly what Davel believes.
Carry On Regardless.
-
So if Wolters says CB is guilty that makes it a fact
It's a fact Wolters says he has concrete evidence.
It's obvious he doesn't really though.
-
Carry On Regardless.
The Beautiful South.
-
I think the McCanns were let down by their legal team who did not question the veracity of sandals claims
-
I think the McCanns were let down by their legal team who did not question the veracity of sandals claims
Stop scraping the barrel MR.
Just accept they were never going to win...ECHR.
-
Stop scraping the barrel MR.
Just accept they were never going to win...ECHR.
I'm giving my opinion based on facts..
It's a discussion forum
-
I'm giving my opinion based on facts..
It's a discussion forum
Justice has been done. The case is over. The McCanns gambled and lost; they chose to sue the wrong person and they either have paid or will pay the price.
-
Justice has been done. The case is over. The McCanns gambled and lost; they chose to sue the wrong person and they either have paid or will pay the price.
In your opinion....I don't think justice has been done. I don't think it's just to accuse people of a crime based on lies
-
I'm giving my opinion based on facts..
It's a discussion forum
Yes, but the fact is they lost...you cant discuss them winning because they didn't.
IMO the lawyers they had you can bet will have been the best....same as they always have been.
-
In your opinion....I don't think justice has been done. I don't think it's just to accuse people of a crime based on lies
Not too keen on HCW then?
I mean, he's accused CB based on nothing but CB's lies.
-
In your opinion....I don't think justice has been done. I don't think it's just to accuse people of a crime based on lies
You can rehash the case as much as you like, the fact remains that Amaral and the state of Portugal have been exonerated of wrongdoing whatever you think.
-
You can rehash the case as much as you like, the fact remains that Amaral and the state of Portugal have been exonerated of wrongdoing whatever you think.
I understand the judgement.. It means I can claim CB is guilty based on the police statements
-
I understand the judgement.. It means I can claim CB is guilty based on the police statements
Yes you can, and HCW can write a best selling book to that effect just as soon as he resigns or is sacked. That’s only fair.
-
I understand the judgement.. It means I can claim CB is guilty based on the police statements
Absolute rubbish as usual @)(++(*
-
Yes you can, and HCW can write a best selling book to that effect just as soon as he resigns or is sacked. That’s only fair.
And Brueckner wouldn't stand a hope in hell's chance at The ECHR.
-
Absolute rubbish as usual @)(++(*
I can guarantee you have not read and understood the judgement...thats precisely what the ECHR have said...but it might be a bit over your head
-
I can guarantee you have not read and understood the judgement...thats precisely what the ECHR have said...but it might be a bit over your head
The only thing which is guaranteed, imo, is the complete lack of understanding you display when it comes to legal matters.
-
The only thing which is guaranteed, imo, is the complete lack of understanding you display when it comes to legal matters.
then you are a fool...imo
facts,...in order for freedom of speech to override defamation is if it has a factual basis,...the ECHR look at the veracity of the claims....if you read the judgement they saw the claims made having a factual basis...when they were based merely on the opinion of the PJ...can you dispute any of this...
Therefore based on that if the Germans regard CB as guilty then that should also be looked at as fact
can you provide a counter argument...the answer is no...you cant
-
then you are a fool...imo
facts,...in order for freedom of speech to override defamation is if it has a factual basis,...the ECHR look at the veracity of the claims....if you read the judgement they saw the claims made having a factual basis...when they were based merely on the opinion of the PJ...can you dispute any of this...
Therefore based on that if the Germans regard CB as guilty then that should also be looked at as fact
can you provide a counter argument...the answer is no...you cant
My my my. Are you adding seven ECHR judges to the list of people who don't know as much as you do? The fool is plain to see, and it's not me. @)(++(*
-
My my my. Are you adding seven ECHR judges to the list of people who don't know as much as you do? The fool is plain to see, and it's not me. @)(++(*
the fool is you..
first because you cannot answer the points ive raised..
second because I havent criticised the judges.
Having read the judgement its clear the McCanns challenged the SC decision on the basis of being cleared by the archiving report...the judgement discussed this at length...they should have challenged the veracity of the claims which were accepted without question by the ECHR
-
the fool is you..
first because you cannot answer the points ive raised..
second because I havent criticised the judges.
Having read the judgement its clear the McCanns challenged the SC decision on the basis of being cleared by the archiving report...the judgement discussed this at length...they should have challenged the veracity of the claims which were accepted without question by the ECHR
Never mind. You'll get over your disappointment in time.
-
seems not one poster is able to offer any counter argument....as expected
-
There is no argument.
The ECHR decision is final.
McCann lost.
-
seems not one poster is able to offer any counter argument....as expected
Mate, it's over. Your side lost. Go & walk the dog or have a lie down or something.
Come back when you get a win after Brueckner is charged.
-
There is no argument.
The ECHR decision is final.
McCann lost.
Ah but they were confused about facts. Davel should start a thread & list each individual point of fact that was wrong. Share it with the McCanns lawyers, whom by all accounts were useless.
-
It all seems to be going rather well as far as I can see.
-
It all seems to be going rather well as far as I can see.
Going well for Amaral, yes.
-
seems not one poster is able to offer any counter argument....as expected
There is no argument.....the mccs lost
Even the mccs have give up.
Both decisions were unanimous S C and ECHR.
IMO your posts are coming close to trolling....Don't loose all your credibility with an argument that cannot be won.
-
My my my. Are you adding seven ECHR judges to the list of people who don't know as much as you do? The fool is plain to see, and it's not me. @)(++(*
Can you please explain why Davel’s post is wrong?
-
There is no argument.....the mccs lost
Even the mccs have give up.
Both decisions were unanimous S C and ECHR.
IMO your posts are coming close to trolling....Don't loose all your credibility with an argument that cannot be won.
Not really bothered what any sceptics here think...afaiac to be a sceptic means you dont understand the evidence.
I will continue to post as I wish....note gunit had no counter argument...because im absolutely right.
-
then you are a fool...imo
facts,...in order for freedom of speech to override defamation is if it has a factual basis,...the ECHR look at the veracity of the claims....if you read the judgement they saw the claims made having a factual basis...when they were based merely on the opinion of the PJ...can you dispute any of this...
Therefore based on that if the Germans regard CB as guilty then that should also be looked at as fact
can you provide a counter argument...the answer is no...you cant
I can.
I am afraid your assessment of the judgement by the ECHR is just as wrong as your initial prediction that the McCann's would win their case.
Have you read the full judgement or just the abridged legal statement?
I think when you read something you miss the context totally, ie. when you say “factual basis” the actual wording is “sufficient factual basis”. The word sufficient adds a different context entirely.
Also you say
facts,...in order for freedom of speech to override defamation is if it has a factual basis
In the full statement from the judgement at point 82 it states
82. Finally, the Court recalls that, in order to assess the justification of a contested statement, it is necessary to distinguish between factual statements and value judgments. If the materiality of the facts can be proven, the latter do not lend themselves to a demonstration of their accuracy. The requirement that the truth of value judgments be established is impractical and infringes freedom of opinion itself, a fundamental element of the right guaranteed by Article 10. However, even where a statement amounts to a judgement of value, it must be based on a sufficient factual basis, otherwise it would be excessive (Do Carmo de Portugal e Castro Câmara v. Portugal, no. 53139/11, § 31, 4 October 2016, and Egill Einarsson v. Iceland,no 24703/15, § 40, November 7, 2017).
It distinguishes between factual statements and value judgments and places no requirement for the truth of value judgments but only that they have “sufficient factual basis”.
The bar is much lower in the case of value judgments and it certainly is not the state of veracity that you have previously claimed.
-
the fool is you..
first because you cannot answer the points ive raised..
second because I havent criticised the judges.
Having read the judgement its clear the McCanns challenged the SC decision on the basis of being cleared by the archiving report...the judgement discussed this at length...they should have challenged the veracity of the claims which were accepted without question by the ECHR
Also you are wrong on this point. The lawyers for the McCanns used the status of being cleared by the archiving report in the claim for breach of Article 6.2 (Presumption of Innocence). This wasn’t even ruled on but was deemed inadmissible.
-
I can.
I am afraid your assessment of the judgement by the ECHR is just as wrong as your initial prediction that the McCann's would win their case.
Have you read the full judgement or just the abridged legal statement?
I think when you read something you miss the context totally, ie. when you say “factual basis” the actual wording is “sufficient factual basis”. The word sufficient adds a different context entirely.
Also you say
facts,...in order for freedom of speech to override defamation is if it has a factual basis
In the full statement from the judgement at point 82 it states
82. Finally, the Court recalls that, in order to assess the justification of a contested statement, it is necessary to distinguish between factual statements and value judgments. If the materiality of the facts can be proven, the latter do not lend themselves to a demonstration of their accuracy. The requirement that the truth of value judgments be established is impractical and infringes freedom of opinion itself, a fundamental element of the right guaranteed by Article 10. However, even where a statement amounts to a judgement of value, it must be based on a sufficient factual basis, otherwise it would be excessive (Do Carmo de Portugal e Castro Câmara v. Portugal, no. 53139/11, § 31, 4 October 2016, and Egill Einarsson v. Iceland,no 24703/15, § 40, November 7, 2017).
It distinguishes between factual statements and value judgments and places no requirement for the truth of value judgments but only that they have “sufficient factual basis”.
The bar is much lower in the case of value judgments and it certainly is not the state of veracity that you have previously claimed.
Thanks. I tried to explain this in part last night. Davel has the bar set so that Amaral would had to prove Maddie was transported in the car, as oppose to having deduced, not unreasonably, based on the biological trace & cadaver alert, that she may have been transported in there. It's a fact his team concluded that, not that she definitely was.
-
Thanks. I tried to explain this in part last night. Davel has the bar set so that Amaral would had to prove Maddie was transported in the car, as oppose to having deduced, not unreasonably, based on the biological trace & cadaver alert, that she may have been transported in there. It's a fact his team concluded that, not that she definitely was.
Exactly, it was always Amaral's statement of an account concerning his personal experience of the case.
I always thought it was going to be hard to win for the McCanns as the Supreme Court consistently referred to ECHR cases in making their judgement.
-
Exactly, it was always Amaral's statement of an account concerning his personal experience of the case.
I always thought it was going to be hard to win for the McCanns as the Supreme Court consistently referred to ECHR cases in making their judgement.
So basically any ex-cop can write a book about a case against an individual explaining why he thinks they’re guilty based on his previous role in the case even if no charges are ever brought against the person he is accusing in his book, and there is nothing the person being accused can do about it?
-
Not really bothered what any sceptics here think...afaiac to be a sceptic means you dont understand the evidence.
I will continue to post as I wish....note gunit had no counter argument...because im absolutely right.
Maybe G-Unit has no desire to try to help you to understand now. The case is over, I was right and you were wrong and there's no point in rehashing it all again.
-
Maybe G-Unit has no desire to try to help you to understand now. The case is over, I was right and you were wrong and there's no point in rehashing it all again.
LOL... You obviously cant answer the question as I predicted
-
So basically any ex-cop can write a book about a case against an individual explaining why he thinks they’re guilty based on his previous role in the case even if no charges are ever brought against the person he is accusing in his book, and there is nothing the person being accused can do about it?
That is how I read the result of the ECHR judgement.
Unfounded speculation v evidence will win every time. Bit Alice in Wonderland that.
-
The ECHR made their decision.
McCann lost.
The end.
-
The ECHR made their decision.
McCann lost.
The end.
Wait for the appeal.
-
I can.
I am afraid your assessment of the judgement by the ECHR is just as wrong as your initial prediction that the McCann's would win their case.
Have you read the full judgement or just the abridged legal statement?
I think when you read something you miss the context totally, ie. when you say “factual basis” the actual wording is “sufficient factual basis”. The word sufficient adds a different context entirely.
Also you say
facts,...in order for freedom of speech to override defamation is if it has a factual basis
In the full statement from the judgement at point 82 it states
82. Finally, the Court recalls that, in order to assess the justification of a contested statement, it is necessary to distinguish between factual statements and value judgments. If the materiality of the facts can be proven, the latter do not lend themselves to a demonstration of their accuracy. The requirement that the truth of value judgments be established is impractical and infringes freedom of opinion itself, a fundamental element of the right guaranteed by Article 10. However, even where a statement amounts to a judgement of value, it must be based on a sufficient factual basis, otherwise it would be excessive (Do Carmo de Portugal e Castro Câmara v. Portugal, no. 53139/11, § 31, 4 October 2016, and Egill Einarsson v. Iceland,no 24703/15, § 40, November 7, 2017).
It distinguishes between factual statements and value judgments and places no requirement for the truth of value judgments but only that they have “sufficient factual basis”.
The bar is much lower in the case of value judgments and it certainly is not the state of veracity that you have previously claimed.
At least you've tried... So are amarals claims based on sufficient factual basis.. What do you think is the factual basis for his claims.
There is not sufficient factual basis to prove Maddie died in the apartment... It was the PJ based on their misunderstanding of the evidence.
So what's the difference in my saying CB is guilty...
-
That is how I read the result of the ECHR judgement.
Unfounded speculation v evidence will win every time. Bit Alice in Wonderland that.
Maybe the McCanns should have presented some abduction evidence to the SC, but it wouldn't have made any difference.
-
I can.
I am afraid your assessment of the judgement by the ECHR is just as wrong as your initial prediction that the McCann's would win their case.
Have you read the full judgement or just the abridged legal statement?
I think when you read something you miss the context totally, ie. when you say “factual basis” the actual wording is “sufficient factual basis”. The word sufficient adds a different context entirely.
Also you say
facts,...in order for freedom of speech to override defamation is if it has a factual basis
In the full statement from the judgement at point 82 it states
82. Finally, the Court recalls that, in order to assess the justification of a contested statement, it is necessary to distinguish between factual statements and value judgments. If the materiality of the facts can be proven, the latter do not lend themselves to a demonstration of their accuracy. The requirement that the truth of value judgments be established is impractical and infringes freedom of opinion itself, a fundamental element of the right guaranteed by Article 10. However, even where a statement amounts to a judgement of value, it must be based on a sufficient factual basis, otherwise it would be excessive (Do Carmo de Portugal e Castro Câmara v. Portugal, no. 53139/11, § 31, 4 October 2016, and Egill Einarsson v. Iceland,no 24703/15, § 40, November 7, 2017).
It distinguishes between factual statements and value judgments and places no requirement for the truth of value judgments but only that they have “sufficient factual basis”.
The bar is much lower in the case of value judgments and it certainly is not the state of veracity that you have previously claimed.
I've read the full judgement.. I can't put all the details in every post I write but its good you actually are prepared to discuss it when no one else could..
-
At least you've tried... So are amarals claims based on sufficient factual basis.. What do you think is the factual basis for his claims.
There is not sufficient factual basis to prove Maddie died in the apartment... It was the PJ based on their misunderstanding of the evidence.
So what's the difference in my saying CB is guilty...
Yes, yes they are based on sufficient factual basis.
It's a fact the cadaver dog alerted inside the apartment & a trace of blood was found, & that the investigators deduced Maddie had snuffed it there. Those are the facts.
-
The ECHR made their decision.
McCann lost.
The end.
If you’re not interested in the discussion, rather than trying to shut it down just don’t read the thread.
-
If you’re not interested in the discussion, rather than trying to shut it down just don’t read the thread.
What's there to discuss?
Davel trying to convince us he's right when he isn't?
-
I've read the full judgement.. I can't put all the details in every post I write but its good you actually are prepared to discuss it when no one else could..
Start a thread.
List the mistakes the SC & ECHR made. Enlighten us all with your infinite wisdom.
-
LOL... You obviously cant answer the question as I predicted
your quote.
I predict a lot of very unhappy sceptics on Tuesday
I dont think your predictions are very reliable ....do you.
-
What's there to discuss?
Davel trying to convince us he's right when he isn't?
Precisely, there's nothing worthwhile to discuss.
It's over. McCann lost.
Supporters please do your grieving in private - its more dignified.
-
Precisely, there's nothing worthwhile to discuss.
It's over. McCann lost.
Supporters please do your grieving in private - its more dignified.
I think the best thing for us all to do now, to bring some harmony to the forum, is to just sit & wait patiently & peacefully until Wolters reveals the concrete evidence. If he really has any that is.
-
Precisely, there's nothing worthwhile to discuss.
It's over. McCann lost.
Supporters please do your grieving in private - its more dignified.
Stop being so bossy! No one is grieving and since when were we not allowed to discuss news pertaining to this case? No one is forcing you to read, or even to log on if it’s all so beneath you.
-
Precisely, there's nothing worthwhile to discuss.
It's over. McCann lost.
Supporters please do your grieving in private - its more dignified.
What? When it's getting really interesting? No chance.
-
What? When it's getting really interesting? No chance.
In what way is it getting interesting?
-
In what way is it getting interesting?
Once again if it doesn’t interest then why are you bothering to log on and read? Has the paint already dried round your gaff?
-
How is any of this arguing going to help find Maddie?
-
How is any of this arguing going to help find Maddie?
Since when has that concerned supporters? The welfare of McCann senior is their primary concern
-
Once again if it doesn’t interest then why are you bothering to log on and read? Has the paint already dried round your gaff?
I fixed & painted the front gate the other day, so that was nice. Got to paint the textured wall tomorrow, with brief rest stops for tea & online wummery.
-
In what way is it getting interesting?
Way above your head I'm afraid.
-
Way above your head I'm afraid.
Which really means you haven't got a sensible answer.
-
I fixed & painted the front gate the other day, so that was nice. Got to paint the textured wall tomorrow, with brief rest stops for tea & online wummery.
I'm watching. ?8)@)-)
-
Which really means you haven't got a sensible answer.
I don't need one.
-
At least you've tried... So are amarals claims based on sufficient factual basis.. What do you think is the factual basis for his claims.
There is not sufficient factual basis to prove Maddie died in the apartment... It was the PJ based on their misunderstanding of the evidence.
So what's the difference in my saying CB is guilty...
There was sufficient factual basis for all 7 judges to rule unanimously that Amaral was entitled to express his opinion (value judgement) on the case that he was co-coordinating.
You don’t understand the context that the ruling was made. The judges ruled that it was Amaral's opinions and beliefs. In the book he says
The conclusions my team and I have arrived at are the following
1. The minor, Madeleine McCann died inside apartment 5A of the Ocean Club in Vila da Luz, on the night of May 3rd 2007;
The ECHR didn’t rule that it was a fact that Maddie dies in the apt only it was Amaral and his teams conclusion that she did. It was factual that it was their conclusion.
The difference, I would venture is you have “insufficient factual basis” to claim that CB is guilty as you are not involved in the investigation and have no idea what the evidence is.
-
Since when has that concerned supporters? The welfare of McCann senior is their primary concern
And your primary concern is to put the boot in, it’s certainly never been Madeleine that’s for sure.
-
I've read the full judgement.. I can't put all the details in every post I write but its good you actually are prepared to discuss it when no one else could..
If you had read the full judgement and read it without any dogmatic opinions going in to it, I don’t see how you could not agree with the unanimous decision of the 7 judges. They lay out the five points clearly and concisely that lead to their verdict.
(a) Contribution to a debate of general interest
(b) The applicants’ previous conduct and the extent to which they were well known
(c) The subject matter of the book, documentary and interview, and how the information was obtained
(d) The content of the contested statements and their impact
(e) The particular circumstances of the case
-
There was sufficient factual basis for all 7 judges to rule unanimously that Amaral was entitled to express his opinion (value judgement) on the case that he was co-coordinating.
You don’t understand the context that the ruling was made. The judges ruled that it was Amaral's opinions and beliefs. In the book he says
The conclusions my team and I have arrived at are the following
1. The minor, Madeleine McCann died inside apartment 5A of the Ocean Club in Vila da Luz, on the night of May 3rd 2007;
The ECHR didn’t rule that it was a fact that Maddie dies in the apt only it was Amaral and his teams conclusion that she did. It was factual that it was their conclusion.
The difference, I would venture is you have “insufficient factual basis” to claim that CB is guilty as you are not involved in the investigation and have no idea what the evidence is.
Wolters, in his forthcoming book, could rightfully claim that Brueckner's confession to his mates, & online confession that he murdered Maddie & destroyed the evidence, convinced him that CB was guilty. He wouldn't need to prove that he actually was.
-
And your primary concern is to put the boot in, it’s certainly never been Madeleine that’s for sure.
And what have you been doing recently to help find Maddie?
-
Wolters, in his forthcoming book, could rightfully claim that Brueckner's confession to his mates, & online confession that he murdered Maddie & destroyed the evidence, convinced him that CB was guilty. He wouldn't need to prove that he actually was.
I have no problem with Wolters writing a book once he has retired and the investigation is closed ( the same criteria that applied to GA). I am not sure I would read it though.
-
I'm watching. ?8)@)-)
The gate was interesting.
There was a rotten patch that I treated with Rustins wood hardener, before applying a brace around the patch & layering wood filler in.
I then made sure to put hardener around the base of the gate to prevent any further rot from taking hold, then applied 3 separate coats of Dulux 10 year weathershield.
It looks great & will be fit to withstand the elements for years to come.
-
I have no problem with Wolters writing a book once he has retired and the investigation is closed ( the same criteria that applied to GA). I am not sure I would read it though.
There wouldn't be much to read, to be fair, he's already shown his full deck.
-
I have no problem with Wolters writing a book once he has retired and the investigation is closed ( the same criteria that applied to GA). I am not sure I would read it though.
Did you read Amaral’s book?
-
There wouldn't be much to read, to be fair, he's already shown his full deck.
Saying that I don't think I ever read all of Amaral's book either, & if the McCanns had never pursued him through the courts, I hadn't gone into that particular cafe that day & read about the trial, then stumbled across Anne's trial reports, I might never even have found this place.
So next time my wummery offends anybody, just remember, you can thank the McCanns that I ever even found this wonderful platform.
-
Saying that I don't think I ever read all of Amaral's book either, & if the McCanns had never pursued him through the courts, I hadn't gone into that particular cafe that day & read about the trial, then stumbled across Anne's trial reports, I might never even have found this place.
So next time my wummery offends anybody, just remember, you can thank the McCanns that I ever even found this wonderful platform.
I read it years ago on a flight from the Algarve to Luton. I was too tight to pay for allocated seating so I was seated away from my family and downloaded to my phone before the plane took off. After I read it I thought, meh, whats all the fuss about and then promptly forgot about it for many years. I wouldn't read it again.
-
The gate was interesting.
There was a rotten patch that I treated with Rustins wood hardener, before applying a brace around the patch & layering wood filler in.
I then made sure to put hardener around the base of the gate to prevent any further rot from taking hold, then applied 3 separate coats of Dulux 10 year weathershield.
It looks great & will be fit to withstand the elements for years to come.
I'm glad it worked out for you. Now, about that wumming... %56&
-
I read it years ago on a flight from the Algarve to Luton. I was too tight to pay for allocated seating so I was seated away from my family and downloaded to my phone before the plane took off. After I read it I thought, meh, whats all the fuss about and then promptly forgot about it for many years. I wouldn't read it again.
yes, it is a very poor read, buy easy to finish in a short plane journey. Still, if it had been accusing me of crimes against my own child that I had not committed I too would have made a bloody great fuss.
-
I read it years ago on a flight from the Algarve to Luton. I was too tight to pay for allocated seating so I was seated away from my family and downloaded to my phone before the plane took off. After I read it I thought, meh, whats all the fuss about and then promptly forgot about it for many years. I wouldn't read it again.
I've never read Kate's book either, can't quite bring myself to do it.
There's something about knowing/believing that Maddie simply wasn't abducted, based on my reasonable assessment of the available evidence, that makes her efforts to protest her innocence somewhat repulsive I find.
-
yes, it is a very poor read, buy easy to finish in a short plane journey. Still, if it had been accusing me of crimes against my own child that I had not committed I too would have made a bloody great fuss.
You'd probably make a fuss if you were guilty also.
-
I'm glad it worked out for you. Now, about that wumming... %56&
Ok sorry, I was trying not to join in with the outright goading & gloating by posting extraneous nonsense instead.
-
The black triangle is up again;
This denotes *insecure website* or a lying post perchance.
I shall not be contributing atm because of this.
-
Did any one pick this up from the judgement. One of the facts.
10. Biological traces and blood were detected by British police dogs inside the holiday apartment and in the boot of the car which the applicants had hired a few days after their daughter's disappearance (see paragraph 40 below). As a result, on 7 September 2007, the applicants were charged (constituted arguidos). They were suspected of having hidden their daughter's body after her death, possibly as a result of a domestic accident, in the apartment and of having faked an abduction. The applicants' indictment received unprecedented national and international media coverage.
Paragraph 40;
40. As to the facts, referring to the evidence submitted by the parties, the Lisbon Court found the following to be established:
" (...)
6. The British police dogs "Eddie" and "Keela" detected human blood and cadaver scent marks inside apartment 5-A of the Ocean Club.
7. The British police dogs "Eddie" and "Keela" detected human blood and cadaver scent marks inside the vehicle rented by the applicants (...) after Madeleine disappeared.
-
Did any one pick this up from the judgement. One of the facts.
10. Biological traces and blood were detected by British police dogs inside the holiday apartment and in the boot of the car which the applicants had hired a few days after their daughter's disappearance (see paragraph 40 below). As a result, on 7 September 2007, the applicants were charged (constituted arguidos). They were suspected of having hidden their daughter's body after her death, possibly as a result of a domestic accident, in the apartment and of having faked an abduction. The applicants' indictment received unprecedented national and international media coverage.
Paragraph 40;
40. As to the facts, referring to the evidence submitted by the parties, the Lisbon Court found the following to be established:
" (...)
6. The British police dogs "Eddie" and "Keela" detected human blood and cadaver scent marks inside apartment 5-A of the Ocean Club.
7. The British police dogs "Eddie" and "Keela" detected human blood and cadaver scent marks inside the vehicle rented by the applicants (...) after Madeleine disappeared.
I think a lot of people have picked it up and were probably equally as astounded to see it there as I was; considering it is the prevailing myth among sceptics and nothing at all to do with the bona fide forensic results which cleared the McCanns.
-
I think a lot of people have picked it up and were probably equally as astounded to see it there as I was; considering it is the prevailing myth among sceptics and nothing at all to do with the bona fide forensic results which cleared the McCanns.
It clearly isn't a myth ,it's in the judgement handed down unanimously by no less than 7 judges.
-
I think a lot of people have picked it up and were probably equally as astounded to see it there as I was; considering it is the prevailing myth among sceptics and nothing at all to do with the bona fide forensic results which cleared the McCanns.
How did it clear the mccs.....the forensic was inconclusive.
Inconclusive results indicate that DNA testing did not produce information that would allow an individual to be either included or excluded as the source of the biological evidence.
I wouldn't call that cleared.
-
I think a lot of people have picked it up and were probably equally as astounded to see it there as I was; considering it is the prevailing myth among sceptics and nothing at all to do with the bona fide forensic results which cleared the McCanns.
All the judges (Portuguese and ECHR) needed to decide was whether GA based his theory on facts which were recorded in the investigation files. They were.
-
Did any one pick this up from the judgement. One of the facts.
10. Biological traces and blood were detected by British police dogs inside the holiday apartment and in the boot of the car which the applicants had hired a few days after their daughter's disappearance (see paragraph 40 below). As a result, on 7 September 2007, the applicants were charged (constituted arguidos). They were suspected of having hidden their daughter's body after her death, possibly as a result of a domestic accident, in the apartment and of having faked an abduction. The applicants' indictment received unprecedented national and international media coverage.
Paragraph 40;
40. As to the facts, referring to the evidence submitted by the parties, the Lisbon Court found the following to be established:
" (...)
6. The British police dogs "Eddie" and "Keela" detected human blood and cadaver scent marks inside apartment 5-A of the Ocean Club.
7. The British police dogs "Eddie" and "Keela" detected human blood and cadaver scent marks inside the vehicle rented by the applicants (...) after Madeleine disappeared.
Those indisputable, court verified facts still haven't been adequately explained.
You can see why the PJ moved to place the pair as suspects.
-
All the judges (Portuguese and ECHR) needed to decide was whether GA based his theory on facts which were recorded in the investigation files. They were.
They wernt further. They clearly identified when the book was in development, thus ruled, as you say, it was as a result of the investigation.
Rulings rarely get more unequivocal and it's of no little amusement to me that some are attempting a transpicuous version of double speak to explain what amounts to an absolute drubbing.
-
Those indisputable, court verified facts still haven't been adequately explained.
You can see why the PJ moved to place the pair as suspects.
That didn't go well.
-
It clearly isn't a myth ,it's in the judgement handed down unanimously by no less than 7 judges.
One hates to be pedantic about these things but the judgement quoted the myth used by Amaral and his team to constitute arguidos.
Further investigation involving a proper understanding of the forensics revealed there was no foundation to the initial reasoning used.
I am sure the learned judges took all of that into account but my opinion is that they quoted the lie while ignoring the truth.
-
Does any of this actually matter. Obviously not.
-
How did it clear the mccs.....the forensic was inconclusive.
Inconclusive results indicate that DNA testing did not produce information that would allow an individual to be either included or excluded as the source of the biological evidence.
I wouldn't call that cleared.
One begins to appreciate the expertise which makes Amaral such an authority on the setting up of patsys.
-
Did any one pick this up from the judgement. One of the facts.
10. Biological traces and blood were detected by British police dogs inside the holiday apartment and in the boot of the car which the applicants had hired a few days after their daughter's disappearance (see paragraph 40 below). As a result, on 7 September 2007, the applicants were charged (constituted arguidos). They were suspected of having hidden their daughter's body after her death, possibly as a result of a domestic accident, in the apartment and of having faked an abduction. The applicants' indictment received unprecedented national and international media coverage.
Paragraph 40;
40. As to the facts, referring to the evidence submitted by the parties, the Lisbon Court found the following to be established:
" (...)
6. The British police dogs "Eddie" and "Keela" detected human blood and cadaver scent marks inside apartment 5-A of the Ocean Club.
7. The British police dogs "Eddie" and "Keela" detected human blood and cadaver scent marks inside the vehicle rented by the applicants (...) after Madeleine disappeared.
yes, it's one of those facts that aren't necessarily true facts - G-Unit explained it all the other day.
-
Does any of this actually matter. Obviously not.
The McCanns hit exactly the right note in reference to this. There is still an active police investigation taking place regarding Madeleine and that is the fact that anyone actually interested in justice for her should be very happy about.
That is what matters. And until such time as it is concluded one way or the other it will continue to matter.
-
Is any of this of any importance in the solving of this case? No.
-
All the judges (Portuguese and ECHR) needed to decide was whether GA based his theory on facts which were recorded in the investigation files. They were.
quite, what apparently doesn't matter to the judges is whether or not the "facts" were true in the first place.
This means that even if an ex-cop comes to a conclusion based on picking up the wrong end of the stick they are entitled to do so and write it up into a best selling book. It's all perfectly clear now.
-
Is any of this of any importance in the solving of this case? No.
What gets me about it all is the smattering of malcontents who actually do not want Madeleine's case to be solved.
-
What gets me about it all is the smattering of malcontents who actually do not want Madeleine's case to be solved.
to put it bluntly...its because they believe all the rubbish about the dogs. If Eddie was correct then the McCanns are guilty and CB is innocent. My valued judgement based on sufficient facts show taht the alerts by Eddie were of no significance...which isnt far off what Harrison and Grime said
-
What gets me about it all is the smattering of malcontents who actually do not want Madeleine's case to be solved.
I thought it was more to do with getting The McCanns indicted.
This isn't going to happen.
-
quite, what apparently doesn't matter to the judges is whether or not the "facts" were true in the first place.
This means that even if an ex-cop comes to a conclusion based on picking up the wrong end of the stick they are entitled to do so and write it up into a best selling book. It's all perfectly clear now.
Seven judges have concurred on that. Now all we need to see is how much rope Amaral is going to need - could be interesting.
Tell me, what do you think the situation regarding the false Brueckner dreadlocks is now.
-
quite, what apparently doesn't matter to the judges is whether or not the "facts" were true in the first place.
This means that even if an ex-cop comes to a conclusion based on picking up the wrong end of the stick they are entitled to do so and write it up into a best selling book. It's all perfectly clear now.
GA was entitled to express his theory so long as it was based on the evidence in the files. It was. The question of whether that evidence was true or false was for the judges in any criminal trial to decide.
-
Is any of this of any importance in the solving of this case? No.
Then why do you think that the parents took so much time, energy and money pursuing it?
-
to put it bluntly...its because they believe all the rubbish about the dogs. If Eddie was correct then the McCanns are guilty and CB is innocent. My valued judgement based on sufficient facts show taht the alerts by Eddie were of no significance...which isnt far off what Harrison and Grime said
Unfortunately your judgement has proven to be sadly lacking.
-
I thought it was more to do with getting The McCanns indicted.
This isn't going to happen.
Had they been illiterate Portuguese peasants they would be doing time yet. The fact that they are innocent would not have provided any protection for them.
I think it is well past time that Madeleine be given her day and police investigations be allowed to proceed in whichever direction the evidence leads.
As we have seen - never at any time did it veer towards her parents except when the shattering error of the dogs was engineered to that end.
-
GA was entitled to express his theory so long as it was based on the evidence in the files. It was. The question of whether that evidence was true or false was for the judges in any criminal trial to decide.
It was so incompetent that there was never any danger of it being progressed anywhere near a criminal trial.
No evidence = no trial. And 'no trial' is exactly what didn't happen over fifteen years ago.
-
What gets me about it all is the smattering of malcontents who actually do not want Madeleine's case to be solved.
It was solved 15 years ago.
-
GA was entitled to express his theory so long as it was based on the evidence in the files. It was. The question of whether that evidence was true or false was for the judges in any criminal trial to decide.
p
So what you are saying is the McCanns loss was due to lies in the files
-
They wernt further. They clearly identified when the book was in development, thus ruled, as you say, it was as a result of the investigation.
Rulings rarely get more unequivocal and it's of no little amusement to me that some are attempting a transpicuous version of double speak to explain what amounts to an absolute drubbing.
A drubbing based on lies
-
That didn't go well.
Well it proved rather telling when delierbating over this latest crushing defeat for the pair.
-
A drubbing based on lies
Conclusions, dear chap. Conclusions based on the weight of evidence as they saw it.
For the purposes of the exercise, it doens't matter the content, but ratrher the result.
-
Conclusions, dear chap. Conclusions based on the weight of evidence as they saw it.
For the purposes of the exercise, it doens't matter the content, but ratrher the result.
The abduction evidence didn't weigh very much, to be fair, as the 3 investigative forces have discovered.
-
Conclusions, dear chap. Conclusions based on the weight of evidence as they saw it.
For the purposes of the exercise, it doens't matter the content, but ratrher the result.
A victory based on lies... And that's a fact
-
A victory based on lies... And that's a fact
Not lies, just facts that weren't true.
-
A victory based on lies.
I imagine all losers have to come up with some explanation. It's never their fault they lost.
£2m though.....that'll dent the coffers.
-
Not lies, just facts that weren't true.
Have a meeting and come up with a consensus already.
Dav says lies, you say untrue facts.
-
I imagine all losers have to come up with some explanation. It's never their fault they lost.
£2m though.....that'll dent the coffers.
There's still room for appeal, might even be a new trial, with davel & Wolters as expert witnesses.
-
Not lies, just facts that weren't true.
There's enough evidence in the files to show they were lies
-
There's enough evidence in the files to show they were lies
I'm still coming to terms with the concept of facts that are untrue. *%87
-
Had they been illiterate Portuguese peasants they would be doing time yet. The fact that they are innocent would not have provided any protection for them.
I think it is well past time that Madeleine be given her day and police investigations be allowed to proceed in whichever direction the evidence leads.
As we have seen - never at any time did it veer towards her parents except when the shattering error of the dogs was engineered to that end.
But how would you actually know this though?
Do you think it likely the MET would be announcing that they suspect the McCanns?
I mean, that tactic hasn't got Wolters anywhere has it.
-
I'm still coming to terms with the concept of facts that are untrue. *%87
Forever hoisted by Davel Gray's petard of remedial, irredeemably erroneous interpretation of law.
Funny how cognitive dissonance makes fools of the naive and trusting in search of a comfort blanket.
-
Forever hoisted by Davel Gray's petard of remedial, irredeemably erroneous interpretation of law.
Funny how cognitive dissonance makes fools of the naive and trusting in search of a comfort blanket.
Fur coat and no knickers sums up your post and shows your ignorance of portugues justice.
I'll admit I don't understand and the fact is no one has explained.
How can something easily proven false be accepted as a proven fact.
Same in the Cipriano case.. Proven fact...Blood from. Joanna found in the fridge.
Truth is the blood was never dna tested and may well have been animal.
One fact is Amaral's so called facts... Were lies. Are the PJ thick or just dishonest
-
Had they been illiterate Portuguese peasants they would be doing time yet. The fact that they are innocent would not have provided any protection for them.
I think it is well past time that Madeleine be given her day and police investigations be allowed to proceed in whichever direction the evidence leads.
As we have seen - never at any time did it veer towards her parents except when the shattering error of the dogs was engineered to that end.
“ British police helped to "develop evidence" against Madeleine McCann's parents as they were investigated by Portuguese police as formal suspects in the disappearance of their daughter, the US ambassador to Portugal was told by his British counterpart in September 2007.
The meeting between US ambassador Al Hoffman and the British ambassador, Alexander Wykeham Ellis, took place a fortnight after Kate and Gerry McCann were formally declared arguidos, or suspects, by Portuguese police. The McCanns have said that there was "absolutely no evidence to implicate them in Madeleine's disappearance whatsoever."
In a diplomatic cable marked confidential, the US ambassador reported: "Without delving into the details of the case, Ellis admitted that the British police had developed the current evidence against the McCann parents, and he stressed that authorities from both countries were working co-operatively."
https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2010/dec/13/wikileaks-madeleine-mccann-british-police
-
“ British police helped to "develop evidence" against Madeleine McCann's parents as they were investigated by Portuguese police as formal suspects in the disappearance of their daughter, the US ambassador to Portugal was told by his British counterpart in September 2007.
The meeting between US ambassador Al Hoffman and the British ambassador, Alexander Wykeham Ellis, took place a fortnight after Kate and Gerry McCann were formally declared arguidos, or suspects, by Portuguese police. The McCanns have said that there was "absolutely no evidence to implicate them in Madeleine's disappearance whatsoever."
In a diplomatic cable marked confidential, the US ambassador reported: "Without delving into the details of the case, Ellis admitted that the British police had developed the current evidence against the McCann parents, and he stressed that authorities from both countries were working co-operatively."
https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2010/dec/13/wikileaks-madeleine-mccann-british-police
I thought the British High Ups were brought in to protect the McCanns and help them get off, isn’t that what The Gonc alleged and why he got fired?
-
All going well then.
-
All going well then.
It is, given the thread is about the ECHR case.
-
All going well then.
No, of course not.
The abductor(s) still haven't been brought to justice & he, she or they, could strike again.
-
Some where I read. *&^^&
you really need to listen to someone who knows what they are talking about..thats me. i probably know more about the court and ECHR case than anyone else on any forum...including poulton...brown...the P resident......eevry one of them.
first the SC did not rule on whether the book was libellous....and the SC did noy say the mcCanns havent been proved innocece...yhey simply gave their opinion on the balance of rights re article 8 and 10....and they got it wrong and i can tell you why.
this case is all about amaral rights under articla 10 and the McCanns rights under article 8.
If you look at how the ECHR decide one of the major points is the veraciity of the claims ...in this case those made by amaral
The portuguese court made a mistake...even the court of the first instance...they said they were not there to consider the veracity of amarals claims..they would not let Gerry present his arguments re the dogs which would have shown amarals claims were not based on facts.....but on lies...thats contrary to the ECHRs stance...major error by portugal.
the mcCanns have quoted Springer vs Germnay where the ECHR ruked in favour of free speech...peter mac...who must be a bit thick on the CMOMM site says he cant understand why the Mcs have cited a case where Free speech was ruled more important....i understand...it sbecause the claims were true and proved in court.
so the ECHR will look at the evidence and see whether amaral was right to pronounce the mccanns guilty...the dogs etc...they will look at that and may even give their opinions on them. the archiving despatch said none of the evidence used to make the mccans guilty was confirmed..its in the files. so amaral is nmaking claims with no evidence to support them.
Based on all this I cannot see any way the ECHR will not find in the McCanns favour
-
I thought the British High Ups were brought in to protect the McCanns and help them get off, isn’t that what The Gonc alleged and why he got fired?
Then he was obviously wrong.
-
Then he was obviously wrong.
Just like he was wrong about the McCanns. Wolters can prove it.
-
Then he was obviously wrong.
and he’s wrong about the McCanns still being suspects. He is a paranoid conspiracy theorist isn’t he?
-
Some where I read. *&^^&
you really need to listen to someone who knows what they are talking about..thats me. i probably know more about the court and ECHR case than anyone else on any forum...including poulton...brown...the P resident......eevry one of them.
first the SC did not rule on whether the book was libellous....and the SC did noy say the mcCanns havent been proved innocece...yhey simply gave their opinion on the balance of rights re article 8 and 10....and they got it wrong and i can tell you why.
this case is all about amaral rights under articla 10 and the McCanns rights under article 8.
If you look at how the ECHR decide one of the major points is the veraciity of the claims ...in this case those made by amaral
The portuguese court made a mistake...even the court of the first instance...they said they were not there to consider the veracity of amarals claims..they would not let Gerry present his arguments re the dogs which would have shown amarals claims were not based on facts.....but on lies...thats contrary to the ECHRs stance...major error by portugal.
the mcCanns have quoted Springer vs Germnay where the ECHR ruked in favour of free speech...peter mac...who must be a bit thick on the CMOMM site says he cant understand why the Mcs have cited a case where Free speech was ruled more important....i understand...it sbecause the claims were true and proved in court.
so the ECHR will look at the evidence and see whether amaral was right to pronounce the mccanns guilty...the dogs etc...they will look at that and may even give their opinions on them. the archiving despatch said none of the evidence used to make the mccans guilty was confirmed..its in the files. so amaral is nmaking claims with no evidence to support them.
Based on all this I cannot see any way the ECHR will not find in the McCanns favour
My post from October 2018;
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
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=7275.msg497499;topicseen#msg497499
-
and he’s wrong about the McCanns still being suspects. He is a paranoid conspiracy theorist isn’t he?
How could you possibly know for sure?
-
and he’s wrong about the McCanns still being suspects. He is a paranoid conspiracy theorist isn’t he?
I have no idea. He still has connections within the PJ so who knows. What we must never forget is the Portuguese still have primacy in this case no matters what Wolter says.
-
My post from October 2018;
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
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=7275.msg497499;topicseen#msg497499
Just one thing that’s puzzling me: given that the definition of a fact is “ a thing that is known or proved to be true”, how can there be such a thing as a false fact?
-
I have no idea. He still has connections within the PJ so who knows. What we must never forget is the Portuguese still have primacy in this case no matters what Wolter says.
Redwood did say the McCanns aren't suspects also.
Whether he was telling the truth or not we're unlikely to ever know.
-
I have no idea. He still has connections within the PJ so who knows. What we must never forget is the Portuguese still have primacy in this case no matters what Wolter says.
Well we do know that CB is an arguido in this case and the McCanns aren’t so that’s a little clue isn’t it?
-
I'm still coming to terms with the concept of facts that are untrue. *%87
It has been explained.
The decision concerning this issue faces, firstly, the problem of the dichotomy between "facts ascertained during the investigating process" and "facts that also are part of the investigating process". If “acts 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
https://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/v02.htm page 11
In other words the only fact in the files which is true is that Madeleine disappeared.
-
Redwood did say the McCanns aren't suspects also.
Whether he was telling the truth or not we're unlikely to ever know.
Yeah but, he said Tannerman was almost certainly not the abductor, funnily enough not seen any arguments saying he looked like CB.
-
Yeah but, he said Tannerman was almost certainly not the abductor, funnily enough not seen any arguments saying he looked like CB.
We have drifted off topic I fear & for Madeleine’s sake we really should be focusing on the abduction & not wasting our time discussing civil litigation imo.
-
It has been explained.
The decision concerning this issue faces, firstly, the problem of the dichotomy between "facts ascertained during the investigating process" and "facts that also are part of the investigating process". If “acts 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
https://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/v02.htm page 11
In other words the only fact in the files which is true is that Madeleine disappeared.
My contention is that you can’t have facts which are untrue. It’s impossible. Something is either a fact or it isn’t. And it’s absurd to say that the only “true fact” in the files is that Madeleine disappeared. There are thousands of “true facts” in the files.
-
My contention is that you can’t have facts which are untrue. It’s impossible. Something is either a fact or it isn’t. And it’s absurd to say that the only “true fact” in the files is that Madeleine disappeared. There are thousands of “true facts” in the files.
I'd venture there are many things taken as fact that aren't true.
-
My contention is that you can’t have facts which are untrue. It’s impossible. Something is either a fact or it isn’t. And it’s absurd to say that the only “true fact” in the files is that Madeleine disappeared. There are thousands of “true facts” in the files.
I know you're not reading this, but we've been down this road before: The 'facts' are the conclusions the PJ drew, based on the evidence gathered, which was voluminous. They, the PJ, acted on this basis. Hence, the 'fact' or 'facts' that the Supreme Court is referring to in this instance is the act, irrespective of the veracity of the evidence that lead to the act.
-
I know you're not reading this, but we've been down this road before: The 'facts' are the conclusions the PJ drew, based on the evidence gathered, which was voluminous. They, the PJ, acted on this basis. Hence, the 'fact' or 'facts' that the Supreme Court is referring to in this instance is the act, irrespective of the veracity of the evidence that lead to the act.
Veracity or indeed admissibility in court.
From everything that transpired, the investigative team reached the conclusion they did.
If only they'd have just gone straight to Brueckner's house & smashed his door down all of this could have been avoided.
-
I know you're not reading this, but we've been down this road before: The 'facts' are the conclusions the PJ drew, based on the evidence gathered, which was voluminous. They, the PJ, acted on this basis. Hence, the 'fact' or 'facts' that the Supreme Court is referring to in this instance is the act, irrespective of the veracity of the evidence that lead to the act.
If what you are saying is true then the proven facts do not meet the standard expected by the ECHR as facts.
Proven facts in this instance are not facts
-
The dogs barked in the apartment = fact
the dogs alerted to a dead body = a contention, an intepretation, = NOT a fact.
-
Bless your little British hearts. You're trying to understand legal concepts from another country with a different language. Perhaps you never will. Maybe you should stop trying and accept that seven ECHR judges from different countries did understand.
-
The dogs barked in the apartment = fact
the dogs alerted to a dead body = a contention, an intepretation, = NOT a fact.
GMC Can I make a statement?
Judge - The statements in the Portuguese court system, unlike in England where people can give extemporaneous statements [see VPS], are the declarations, which consist of a series of questions put by the lawyers and Judge and by the answers of the deponent, which you just gave. You can say something but it won't have any legal validity, nevertheless it will still be recorded.
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.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=4746.0
-
Bless your little British hearts. You're trying to understand legal concepts from another country with a different language. Perhaps you never will. Maybe you should stop trying and accept that seven ECHR judges from different countries did understand.
Some of us are quite capable of understanding these things.
The judges can only rule on the evidence presented...the McCann may well have been let down by their legal team....who it appears have no proven expertise in human rights.
Whichever way to try to spin it the case was decided on so called facts which were lies
-
Bless your little British hearts. You're trying to understand legal concepts from another country with a different language. Perhaps you never will. Maybe you should stop trying and accept that seven ECHR judges from different countries did understand.
I understand perfectly thanks, I’m just challenging the notion that there is such a thing as a false fact. I don’t think that’s worthy of your sarky comment frankly.
-
Some of us are quite capable of understanding these things.
The judges can only rule on the evidence presented...the McCann may well have been let down by their legal team....who it appears have no proven expertise in human rights.
Whichever way to try to spin it the case was decided on so called facts which were lies
This was the exact same strategy you used on the Dog Evidence thread, you suggested that the defence lawyers never challenged the presentation of the dog alerts as evidence despite having no evidence of this occurring.
Is it just lawyers being inept in cases that affect your entrenched opinions that you call out or the is whole legal profession inept.
I have to say, it is very evident that on this forum there are 2 opposing teams and in this case your team lost and the funny thing is you still can’t understand why.
-
This was the exact same strategy you used on the Dog Evidence thread, you suggested that the defence lawyers never challenged the presentation of the dog alerts as evidence despite having no evidence of this occurring.
Is it just lawyers being inept in cases that affect your entrenched opinions that you call out or the is whole legal profession inept.
I have to say, it is very evident that on this forum there are 2 opposing teams and in this case your team lost and the funny thing is you still can’t understand why.
Either they don't understand or they just don't want to. It must be upsetting to accept that your long held opinions are mistaken.
-
Either they don't understand or they just don't want to. It must be upsetting to accept that your long held opinions are mistaken.
Has it occurred to any of you that this really isn't all that important?
-
Has it occurred to any of you that this really isn't all that important?
It has to me, & the McCanns.
We should be focusing our attention on finding Madeleine.
None of this is helping the search at all.
-
Either they don't understand or they just don't want to. It must be upsetting to accept that your long held opinions are mistaken.
If you are lumping me in with your “they”, I understand perfectly thanks and if you check my posts on the subject you will find that I had no firm views on whether or not the ECHR would find in the McCanns favour.
-
This was the exact same strategy you used on the Dog Evidence thread, you suggested that the defence lawyers never challenged the presentation of the dog alerts as evidence despite having no evidence of this occurring.
Is it just lawyers being inept in cases that affect your entrenched opinions that you call out or the is whole legal profession inept.
I have to say, it is very evident that on this forum there are 2 opposing teams and in this case your team lost and the funny thing is you still can’t understand why.
I understand precisely why... And I'm not in any team... Dont be so daft
-
Either they don't understand or they just don't want to. It must be upsetting to accept that your long held opinions are mistaken.
My long held opinions are not mistaken... Yours certainly are
-
Just exactly what difference is it going to make?
-
Has it occurred to any of you that this really isn't all that important?
Don’t be silly, it’s vitally important for point scoring and gloating opportunities on this forum.
-
I understand precisely why... And I'm not in any team... Dont be so daft
If you understand why did you post this?
The judges can only rule on the evidence presented...the McCann may well have been let down by their legal team....who it appears have no proven expertise in human rights.
Whichever way to try to spin it the case was decided on so called facts which were lies
Why do you think the McCanns legal team had no expertise in human rights?
-
If you understand why did you post this?
The judges can only rule on the evidence presented...the McCann may well have been let down by their legal team....who it appears have no proven expertise in human rights.
Whichever way to try to spin it the case was decided on so called facts which were lies
Why do you think the McCanns legal team had no expertise in human rights?
Because I've looked at their website
-
If you understand why did you post this?
The judges can only rule on the evidence presented...the McCann may well have been let down by their legal team....who it appears have no proven expertise in human rights.
Whichever way to try to spin it the case was decided on so called facts which were lies
Why do you think the McCanns legal team had no expertise in human rights?
Could you at least try and answer the fact that the facts the ECHR judges relied upon were lies
-
Because I've looked at their website
Whos website? The ECHR? How does that inform you that the McCanns lawyers had no expertise in Human rights?
-
Could you at least try and answer the fact that the facts the ECHR judges relied upon were lies
Which lies are you referring to?
-
Whos website? The ECHR? How does that inform you that the McCanns lawyers had no expertise in Human rights?
Are you being deliberately dense... The lawyers website..... If you are going to comment on something I've posted try and recall accurately what I have said....appear to have no proven expertise.... You would be made to look an idiot in court
-
Don’t be silly, it’s vitally important for point scoring and gloating opportunities on this forum.
I suppose that sort of thing is beneath you & you're here only to help find Maddie.
-
Are you being deliberately dense... The lawyers website..... If you are going to comment on something I've posted try and recall accurately what I have said....appear to have no proven expertise.... You would be made to look an idiot in court
There is only one dense person in this conversation.
By bringing up the lawyers as ,maybe being the reason the McCaans lost shows me you don't understand the judgement.
So from the lawyers website you deduced that they appear to have no proven expertise in human rights. Why did the McCaans choose these lawyers that you could see from a look at their website they had no proven expertise?
-
Redwood did say the McCanns aren't suspects also.
Whether he was telling the truth or not we're unlikely to ever know.
And OG didn’t have primacy either.
-
This was the exact same strategy you used on the Dog Evidence thread, you suggested that the defence lawyers never challenged the presentation of the dog alerts as evidence despite having no evidence of this occurring.
Is it just lawyers being inept in cases that affect your entrenched opinions that you call out or the is whole legal profession inept.
I have to say, it is very evident that on this forum there are 2 opposing teams and in this case your team lost and the funny thing is you still can’t understand why.
The problem you have with basing your argument on the "dog evidence" is that there is none.
Your forum team may be claiming "victory" and that is fine if that is what they want to do. There is another concept of 'victory' and that is in finding out what happened to Madeleine McCann and now I think there can be little doubt that Almeida's and Amaral's flawed investigation played a huge role in the initial failure to accomplish that.
-
There is only one dense person in this conversation.
By bringing up the lawyers as ,maybe being the reason the McCaans lost show me you don't understand the judgement.
So from the lawyers website you deduced that they appear to have no proven expertise in human rights. Why did the McCaans choose these lawyers that you could see from a look at their website they had no proven expertise?
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
-
Well we do know that CB is an arguido in this case and the McCanns aren’t so that’s a little clue isn’t it?
Is it? Murat was an arguido while the parents were being investigated and long before they were named arguidos.
Your point?
-
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
Whats the url for the website? Ill take a look.
You have no idea what they based anything on.
-
Either they don't understand or they just don't want to. It must be upsetting to accept that your long held opinions are mistaken.
The only matter of relevance is the active investigation of Madeleine McCann's case. I am sure that you will be a great supporter of the hope that justice may eventually be served as a result.
-
Whats the url for the website? Ill take a look.
You have no idea what they based anything on.
Whats the url of the website sherlock... Perhaps Im incredibly smarter than you realise.. See if you can find it yourself..
I've also emailed a portugues law professor to ask about what the proven in proven facts mean... I don't like any gaps in my knowledge.
-
Is it? Murat was an arguido while the parents were being investigated and long before they were named arguidos.
Your point?
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?
-
Whats the url for the website? Ill take a look.
You have no idea what they based anything on.
I have intimate knowledge of what the appeal to the ECHR was based on.. Do you want the url for that too
-
Whats the url of the website sherlock... Perhaps Im incredibly smarter than you realise.. See if you can find it yourself..
I've also emailed a portugues law professor to ask about what the proven in proven facts mean... I don't like any gaps in my knowledge.
I have no idea who the lawyers are. Why should I.
OK don't give me the url just the name of the lawyers and i'll google it.
By the way how do you know these lawyers represented the McCaans during the ECHR case?
-
I have intimate knowledge of what the appeal to the ECHR was based on.. Do you want the url for that too
No thanks. I have read the full judgment.
-
No thanks. I have read the full judgment.
Perhaps you didn't read it carefully enough..... That's where I got my information from
-
Perhaps you didn't read it carefully enough..... That's where I got my information from
Oh I did. I read it and I agree with the verdict of all seven judges. How about you?
-
Oh I did. I read it and I agree with the verdict of all seven judges. How about you?
They ruled on the information available... For me the point that Amaral's book was not based on proven facts... And had no real evidence to support it should have been highlighted... So I don't agree with thee verdict
-
They ruled on the information available... For me the point that Amaral's book was not based on proven facts... And had no real evidence to support it should have been highlighted... So I don't agree with thee verdict
And clearly neither would the McCanns’ lawyers unless they wilfully went along with the appeal knowing it would fail, simply to fleece their clients for more cash.
-
They ruled on the information available... For me the point that Amaral's book was not based on proven facts... And had no real evidence to support it should have been highlighted... So I don't agree with thee verdict
So you suggested I didn't read it carefully when my judgment is exactly in line with the seven judges.
I would suggest you didn't read it carefully or don't understand it,as your view is not in line with the seven judges.
Are they all wrong and you are right.
Google the Dunning-Kruger Effect.
-
Oh I did. I read it and I agree with the verdict of all seven judges. How about you?
If you agree with the verdict then you would have to regard Wolters statements as proven facts and regard my labelling CB as the perp in the MM case as being perfectly reasonable
-
So you suggested I didn't read it carefully when my judgment is exactly in line with the seven judges.
I would suggest you didn't read it carefully or don't understand it,as your view is not in line with the seven judges.
Are they all wrong and you are right.
Google the Dunning-Kruger Effect.
I was the first on the forum to cite the DK effect so no Google necessary.
I don't agree with the verdict... I didn't criticise the judges.
I'm sure there are times when judges don't agree with their own verdicts... You might need to think a bout that one
-
If you agree with the verdict then you would have to regard Wolters statements as proven facts and regard my labelling CB as the perp in the MM case as being perfectly reasonable
You really can't grasp the concept can you.
Think of the wording that was used in the judgment. They used the words "value judgement". The book wasn't a science text book where everything has to be empirical facts. It is one persons account of his experience of the case. It has his opinions, beliefs, deductions and conclusions.
Its very simple.
-
I was the first on the forum to cite the DK effect so no Google necessary.
I don't agree with the verdict... I didn't criticise the judges.
I'm sure there are times when judges don't agree with their own verdicts... You might need to think a bout that one
I know you don't agree with it because you don't understand it. Your whole dogmatic view has been for many years that the McCaans would win and now that has been shattered.
-
You really can't grasp the concept can you.
Think of the wording that was used in the judgment. They used the words "value judgement". The book wasn't a science text book where everything has to be empirical facts. It is one persons account of his experience of the case. It has his opinions, beliefs, deductions and conclusions.
Its very simple.
I grasp it you don't.. A valued judgement needs to be supported by reliable facts... Amaral's isn't.... That is a reliable fact
-
I know you don't agree with it because you don't understand it. Your whole dogmatic view has been for many years that the McCaans would win and now that has been shattered.
I understand it better than anyone on this forum whereas you continually display poor logic.
Talking of teams.. If Man City played Tranmere rovers.. I would predict Man City would win.... If they didn't.. I certainly wouldn't be shattered and feel I had a poor knowledge of football.... Can you understand that
-
I grasp it you don't.. A valued judgement needs to be supported by reliable facts... Amaral's isn't.... That is a reliable fact
You really don't. The wording is "sufficient factual basis".
If you grasped it you would be in agreement with the judgement, or are you right and the seven judges wrong.
-
You really don't. The wording is "sufficient factual basis".
If you grasped it you would be in agreement with the judgement, or are you right and the seven judges wrong.
So does Amarals thesis have sufficient factual basis... I think that's checkmate
-
You really don't. The wording is "sufficient factual basis".
If you grasped it you would be in agreement with the judgement, or are you right and the seven judges wrong.
You would have to agree then that the McCanns legal team let them down, as they clearly didn’t grasp it either else they would have advised the McCanns that there was no point going to the ECHR.
-
I understand it better than anyone on this forum whereas you continually display poor logic.
Talking of teams.. If Man City played Tranmere rovers.. I would predict Man City would win.... If they didn't.. I certainly wouldn't be shattered and feel I had a poor knowledge of football.... Can you understand that
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.
-
So does Amarals thesis have sufficient factual basis... I think that's checkmate
You do know what sufficient means don't you? It means enough or adequate.
It was obviously sufficient for the seven judges. That was all it needed to be. Not sufficient for you or sufficient for anyone else.
Checkmate, don't make me laugh. Stick to checkers, that's more your level
-
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?
-
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.
-
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?
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
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 couldn’t be clearer.
-
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 couldn’t 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
-
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 couldn’t be suspects. That’s 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 PJ’s 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 that’s exactly what they were.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?.
-
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 didn’t stand a hope in hell of winning but went ahead and filed the application anyway? Because if that’s what you’re 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.
-
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 couldn’t be clearer.
Of course the lawyers were inept, it’s as plain as day for the reasons I have spelt out in my previous post.
-
Your point appeared to be that CB was an arguido so the parents couldn’t be suspects. That’s 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 PJ’s 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 that’s exactly what they were.
There is not one scintilla (your fave word) of evidence that the McCanns are either police suspects or being investigated by the police so you are simply fantasizing having been taken in by the pronouncements of a gossip and a liar. Now this is off topic so I suggest we leave it there.
-
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.
And so, very evidently, did the expert lawyers - how do you explain that?
-
Has it occurred to any of you that this really isn't all that important?
I can understand why you don't want to discuss it any more. Instead of Amaral and the Portuguese courts being criticised, they were exonerated. The Portuguese courts dealt with the case correctly, and the alleged human rights violations were unfounded. Obviously some people have no interest in discussing what Amaral and the Portuguese courts got right.
-
Whats the url of the website sherlock... Perhaps Im incredibly smarter than you realise.. See if you can find it yourself..
I've also emailed a portugues law professor to ask about what the proven in proven facts mean... I don't like any gaps in my knowledge.
Yet you never emailed Martin Grime.
-
I can understand why you don't want to discuss it any more. Instead of Amaral and the Portuguese courts being criticised, they were exonerated. The Portuguese courts dealt with the case correctly, and the alleged human rights violations were unfounded. Obviously some people have no interest in discussing what Amaral and the Portuguese courts got right.
All your posts recently have had a whiff of goad about them, I thought goading was agsinst forum rules?
-
And so, very evidently, did the expert lawyers - how do you explain that?
The McCann's lawyers did the best they could with a weak case imo.
-
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.
Let's look at the test case referenced and the summary ruling - Von Hannover v Germany:
Judgment
On 24 June 2004, the Court unanimously ruled that there was a breach of Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. It accepted that scenes from daily life, involving activities such as engaging in sport, out walking, leaving a restaurant or on holiday were of a purely private nature, but also noted that "photos appearing in the tabloid press are often taken in a climate of continual harassment which induces in the person concerned a very strong sense of intrusion into their private life or even of persecution" and that "the context in which these photos were taken – without the applicant’s knowledge or consent – and the harassment endured by many public figures in their daily lives cannot be fully disregarded".
This ruling is punctuated with opinion. That's their job; using their experience and referencing previous case law, they're asked to preside and make a value judgement i.e. opinion.
Look at how nuanced this judgement is. They've made a distinction between what constitutes intrusion in to a private life based on the behaviour of paparazzi and the context of the activities being undertaken; a far more complex judgement than McCann v Portugal and one that required way more opinion. Both instances photos are taken without consent, but one context breaches privacy when the other doesn't.
The lines are ambiguous, but somebody has to decide at some point.
-
The McCann's lawyers did the best they could with a weak case imo.
They were derelict in their duty if they failed to point out to the McCanns what you (a non-lawyer not versed i. either PT or European law) apparently knew from the outset. Do you really think the McCanns would have pursued the ECHR appeal if their lawyers had told them there was no grounds for such an appeal?
-
It’s bizarre - some people here are enjoying lambasting Davel for getting it wrong but won’t have it that the McCanns’ lawyers got it wrong. This really does not compute.
-
It’s bizarre - some people here are enjoying lambasting Davel for getting it wrong but won’t have it that the McCanns’ lawyers got it wrong. This really does not compute.
And I'm enjoying raining on their parade. They expected to be gloating over the result and did not expect a rational logical argument in return. If Man city played tranmere again I would still predict man city to win.
What cannot be denied is that the McCanns were represented by a general lawyer with what looks like no experience with the ECHR....
-
It’s bizarre - some people here are enjoying lambasting Davel for getting it wrong but won’t have it that the McCanns’ lawyers got it wrong. This really does not compute.
Perhaps the McCann's decided to pursue all avenues irrespective of advice; a potential driver being delaying having to pay court costs, but more likely their trademark disdain for counter opinion.
Besides, lawyers operate under instruction.
-
Yet you never emailed Martin Grime.
Why would I want to... No gaps in my knowledge there.
The alerts are worthless it says so in the files
-
And I'm enjoying raining on their parade. They expected to be gloating over the result and did not expect a rational logical argument in return. If Man city played tranmere again I would still predict man city to win.
What cannot be denied is that the McCanns were represented by a general lawyer with what looks like no experience with the ECHR....
Let's say that's true, given their retinue of advisors / press agents / benefactors / extended professional circle, the root cause to the supposed failure would surely be the McCanns themselves? Unless, of course, these incomptent, inexperienced lawyers foisted themselves upon them in some way.
None of this washes, I'm afraid. And to use your Man City analogy, Haarland scored all 7 against the Mccann's in an entirely predictable pasting at court.
-
Why would I want to... No gaps in my knowledge there.
The alerts are worthless it says so in the files
More opinion then? You're cherry picking opinion you agree with, but can't get past the cognitive dissonance
-
Clearly the McCanns lawyers gave them duff advice, it's as simple as that, unless people here think the McCanns are gluttons for punishment and humiliation in the courts? As well as desperate to deplete the fund money on more legal fees? Gimme a break.
-
Why would I want to... No gaps in my knowledge there.
The alerts are worthless it says so in the files
Mere 'gaps' doesn't cover it; a wholesale misinterpretation of the methodolgy, efficacy and results, either as a result of inabilty to comprehend, or an unconscious or conscious decision to ignore a concept contrary to ones belief system, would be a better description.
A pattern emerges.
-
Clearly the McCanns lawyers gave them duff advice, it's as simple as that, unless people here think the McCanns are gluttons for punishment and humiliation in the courts? As well as desperate to deplete the fund money on more legal fees? Gimme a break.
In my opinion, the only reason they brought the civil action against Amaral was to clear their own consciences.
-
More opinion then? You're cherry picking opinion you agree with, but can't get past the cognitive dissonance
Its a valued judgement..... Based on evidence. Mark Harrison told us that Grime explained to the PJ that no inferences could be drawn from the alerts without support of physical evidence... Grime says in this case the only alert that can be confirmed is the csi alert..... What evidence e am I ignoring
-
Plus the lawyers had to put forward the McCanns' case as to why they believed ECHR law had been broken - did they draft the submission knowing full well that what they were putting forward before the courts was a load of rubbish? That's not professional, so again - bad lawyers.
-
In my opinion, the only reason they brought the civil action against Amaral was to clear their own consciences.
That does nothing whatsoever to address my point but thanks for your input.
-
In my opinion, the only reason they brought the civil action against Amaral was to clear their own consciences.
You are entitled to your opinion but imo its rubbish
-
Clearly the McCanns lawyers gave them duff advice, it's as simple as that, unless people here think the McCanns are gluttons for punishment and humiliation in the courts? As well as desperate to deplete the fund money on more legal fees? Gimme a break.
Well right up until 3 days ago none of you thought to air these concerns regarding the competence of their legal team. Quite the contrary, in fact, some were quite supportive and optimistic and some went much further and were openly proclaiming copper-bottomed certainty of success.
It's almost as if, right up until the verdict was delivered, the lawyers were going to knock this thing out of the park (despite them having a quasi-administrative role only).
-
Plus the lawyers had to put forward the McCanns' case as to why they believed ECHR law had been broken - did they draft the submission knowing full well that what they were putting forward before the courts was a load of rubbish? That's not professional, so again - bad lawyers.
Has any lawyer ever offered a cast-iron gaurantee of a win? Going to the Supreme Court is a massive gamble, and not one undertaken lightly.
I believe the lawyers were acting under instruction, perhaps even contrary to initial advice.
The decision to appeal was made in haste and served a number of purposes. There's every chance that teh McCann's knew (and were advised) it was a forlorn hope, but public opinion mattered more than pragmatism.
-
Why would I want to... No gaps in my knowledge there.
The alerts are worthless it says so in the files
Brueckner's photo of Maddie proves she couldn't have died in the apartment anyway.
-
Are we supposed to imagine, given how keen Gerry was to discuss the dog alerts with the judge when at the SC, that he never raised this matter with his lawyers again?
-
Has any lawyer ever offered a cast-iron gaurantee of a win? Going to the Supreme Court is a massive gamble, and not one undertaken lightly.
I believe the lawyers were acting under instruction, perhaps even contrary to initial advice.
The decision to appeal was made in haste and served a number of purposes. There's every chance that teh McCann's knew (and were advised) it was a forlorn hope, but public opinion mattered more than pragmatism.
Whatever their motivation in going to the ECHR and however many excuses are put forward, they failed.
-
And of course, by agreeing to represent a client knowing full well that their case is bound to fail is not going to enhance the reputation of your legal practice. It would be shooting yourself in the foot to put earning a few thousand euros above maintaining your reputation and integrity, but maybe not in Portugal - who knows?
-
Why would I want to... No gaps in my knowledge there.
The alerts are worthless it says so in the files
That may or not be the case, what cannot be doubted is that the first trial listed the alerts as fact's , upheld by the ECHR.
-
Well right up until 3 days ago none of you thought to air these concerns regarding the competence of their legal team. Quite the contrary, in fact, some were quite supportive and optimistic and some went much further and were openly proclaiming copper-bottomed certainty of success.
It's almost as if, right up until the verdict was delivered, the lawyers were going to knock this thing out of the park (despite them having a quasi-administrative role only).
I didn't know who the lawyers were 3 days ago... Only found out in the published judgement.
I'm astonished at the choice.
You wouldnt ask your GP to give you a heart transplant.
This is the same lawyer who lost the case in Portugal
-
That may or not be the case, what cannot be doubted is that the first trial listed the alerts as fact's , upheld by the ECHR.
It is the case... Fact. So how and why were these lies accepted by the court as fact's... That's the question that has not been answered
-
IMO an ethical, honourable lawyer knowing that there was zero chance of winning at the ECHR would have turned down the opportunity to represent a client in such an appeal, on the basis that it was unwinnable. But I don't think that's what happened here. I think the McCanns' lawyers clearly were of the opinion that the McCanns had a case and that ECHR had been broken otherwise they would have not been able to put forward any sort of cohesive appeal. And if they held that opinion, it is perfectly reasonable for others to see where they were coming from, even if that opinion was legally refuted at the ECHR.
-
It is the case... Fact. So how and why were these lies accepted by the court as fact's... That's the question that has not been answered
Coming up in the next hour here on Fox.......Which is it today? The judges were wrong, or the lawyers failed? Or both? It was just the judges 3 days ago.
Which excuse will be added tomorrow? Find out later in the show.
Here's Tom with sports.......
-
In my opinion, the only reason they brought the civil action against Amaral was to clear their own consciences.
No, the McCanns have been quite clear that the only reason they brought the action was due to the damage to the search. Further more they are now satisfied that an active investigation into the abduction is since under way. So there's no reason for them to appeal against this decision. But let's see what happens in 3 months time. Hopefully Madeleine's abductor will be found before then though.
-
I didn't know who the lawyers were 3 days ago... Only found out in the published judgement.
I'm astonished at the choice.
You wouldnt ask your GP to give you a heart transplant.
This is the same lawyer who lost the case in Portugal
Hey, wait a goddamm minute. This has all the hallmarks of Metodo 3's appointment! Was this......was this another cunning ploy? Appoint incompetence to give the appearance of diligence? Kevin Halligan?
You've ceretainly given us food for thought.....
-
Coming up in the next hour here on Fox.......Which is it today? The judges were wrong, or the lawyers failed? Or both? It was just the judges 3 days ago.
Which excuse will be added tomorrow? Find out later in the show.
Here's Tom with sports.......
A million excuse can be put forward and probably will be.
None of them will alter reality. McCann lost.
-
Coming up in the next hour here on Fox.......Which is it today? The judges were wrong, or the lawyers failed? Or both? It was just the judges 3 days ago.
Which excuse will be added tomorrow? Find out later in the show.
Here's Tom with sports.......
Davel should have represented them pro-Bono.
He could have taken The Edge along aswell to provide musical entertainment during recess.
-
I didn't know who the lawyers were 3 days ago... Only found out in the published judgement.
I'm astonished at the choice.
You wouldnt ask your GP to give you a heart transplant.
This is the same lawyer who lost the case in Portugal
Well, it seems the mccs were satisfied with their choice of lawyers they're not appealing.
The case was frivolous, to say the least....imo they relied on sympathy.
Judging by your posts it's because your integrity and credibility are in tatters and all you're doing is making it worse.
Isn't it easier just to admit you got it wrong, and not take it too personally?
You can argue till the cows come home it won't change anything ...the mccs lost.
-
A million excuse can be put forward and probably will be.
None of them will alter reality. McCann lost.
Yep, ever since 2017 its been they'll win, no the won't, the why's and wherefores can be discussed ad infinitum the fat lady has sung, time to move on .
More important things in the press, two tv presenters jumped the queue to see a coffin, Harry is upset Meagain wasn't allowed up to Balmoral, echr loss is history.
-
Yep, ever since 2017 its been they'll win, no the won't, the why's and wherefores can be discussed ad infinitum the fat lady has sung, time to move on .
More important things in the press, two tv presenters jumped the queue to see a coffin, Harry is upset Meagain wasn't allowed up to Balmoral, echr loss is history.
& in the Mail this week it said that Brueckner will be charged for his crimes against Madeleine later this year.
-
I can understand why you don't want to discuss it any more. Instead of Amaral and the Portuguese courts being criticised, they were exonerated. The Portuguese courts dealt with the case correctly, and the alleged human rights violations were unfounded. Obviously some people have no interest in discussing what Amaral and the Portuguese courts got right.
I can understand why you didn't want to consider my suggestion. Nothing new there.
-
So based on sceptics opinion on the ruling..
I can say CB is 100% guilty of MM's murder because HCW said so... I don't need to see his evidence... Doesnt matter if its total BS... The fact he's said it makes it a, fact
Lol
-
So based on sceptics opinion on the ruling..
I can say CB is 100% guilty of MM's murder because HCW said so... I don't need to see his evidence... Doesnt matter if its total BS... The fact he's said it makes it a, fact
Lol
The fact is he said it, thats not in dispute .The legend is writ, you'll understand in the end.
-
& in the Mail this week it said that Brueckner will be charged for his crimes against Madeleine later this year.
In the mean time the emergency budget has gone down like a lead balloon.
-
So based on sceptics opinion on the ruling..
I can say CB is 100% guilty of MM's murder because HCW said so... I don't need to see his evidence... Doesnt matter if its total BS... The fact he's said it makes it a, fact
Lol
You've already been doing that for over two years now.
-
A million excuse can be put forward and probably will be.
None of them will alter reality. McCann lost.
Yes, they lost. The question is why? If you're not interested in discussing it, don't read. Here you are trying to shut down discussion whilst earlier G-Unit has accused supporters of not wanting to discuss it. Strange innit.
-
In the mean time the emergency budget has gone down like a lead balloon.
It's a shocker, makes me feel physically ill.
-
It is the case... Fact. So how and why were these lies accepted by the court as fact's... That's the question that has not been answered
A further explanation of what facts are in this context;
All that is part of the investigation, beyond this fact, are clues, means of evidence*, means of obtaining evidence** and theses or hypotheses that are proper to an investigation shelved for lack of evidence. It will therefore be understood that, when are put together the “facts ascertained in the investigation” and the “facts that are part of the investigation”, it is referred to means of obtaining evidence, means of evidence and clues that constitute the proper investigation and are documented in the inquiry.
page 11 https://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/v02.htm
-
Yes, they lost. The question is why? If you're not interested in discussing it, don't read. Here you are trying to shut down discussion whilst earlier G-Unit has accused supporters of not wanting to discuss it. Strange innit.
You can look at the whole and try to fathom like some modern day Rumpole or read the part where it explains it.
What is of note imo is that the Government responded to the communication stage, the applicants did not comment on objections raised ?
vi. Conclusion
101. In view of all the considerations set out above, the Court considers that the Supreme Court, when acting as the court of last instance, made a careful assessment of the balance to be struck between the applicants' right to respect for their private lives and G.A.'s right to freedom of expression, assessing them in the light of the criteria emerging from its case-law and making ample reference to the Court's case-law (see paragraphs 49, 51, 53 and 55 above). Considering the margin of appreciation enjoyed by the national authorities in this case, the Court sees no serious reason to substitute its opinion for that of the Supreme Court. It does not therefore appear that the national authorities failed to fulfil their positive obligation to protect the applicants' right to respect for their private lives within the meaning of Article 8 of the Convention.
102. There was therefore no violation of Article 8 of the Convention.
104. The Government disputed the applicability of Article 6 § 2 of the Convention in the present case. In that respect, it considered that there was no link between the criminal proceedings of which the applicants had been granted a discontinuance and the civil proceedings brought by them following the publication of G.A.'s book and the broadcasting of the documentary film which had been adapted from it. It observed that the criminal proceedings concerned the establishment of the circumstances surrounding the disappearance of the applicants' daughter, whereas the civil proceedings related to the civil liabilities arising from the book and the documentary in question.
105. The applicants did not comment on the objection raised by the Government.
-
It's a shocker, makes me feel physically ill.
It ain't pretty.
-
You can look at the whole and try to fathom like some modern day Rumpole or read the part where it explains it.
What is of note imo is that the Government responded to the communication stage, the applicants did not comment on objections raised ?
vi. Conclusion
101. In view of all the considerations set out above, the Court considers that the Supreme Court, when acting as the court of last instance, made a careful assessment of the balance to be struck between the applicants' right to respect for their private lives and G.A.'s right to freedom of expression, assessing them in the light of the criteria emerging from its case-law and making ample reference to the Court's case-law (see paragraphs 49, 51, 53 and 55 above). Considering the margin of appreciation enjoyed by the national authorities in this case, the Court sees no serious reason to substitute its opinion for that of the Supreme Court. It does not therefore appear that the national authorities failed to fulfil their positive obligation to protect the applicants' right to respect for their private lives within the meaning of Article 8 of the Convention.
102. There was therefore no violation of Article 8 of the Convention.
104. The Government disputed the applicability of Article 6 § 2 of the Convention in the present case. In that respect, it considered that there was no link between the criminal proceedings of which the applicants had been granted a discontinuance and the civil proceedings brought by them following the publication of G.A.'s book and the broadcasting of the documentary film which had been adapted from it. It observed that the criminal proceedings concerned the establishment of the circumstances surrounding the disappearance of the applicants' daughter, whereas the civil proceedings related to the civil liabilities arising from the book and the documentary in question.
105. The applicants did not comment on the objection raised by the Government.
I was rather referring to why did the case ever go before the ECHR in the first place, given that it was apparently obvious to all sceptics right from the start that the McCanns didn't have a leg to stand on.
-
IMO an ethical, honourable lawyer knowing that there was zero chance of winning at the ECHR would have turned down the opportunity to represent a client in such an appeal, on the basis that it was unwinnable. But I don't think that's what happened here. I think the McCanns' lawyers clearly were of the opinion that the McCanns had a case and that ECHR had been broken otherwise they would have not been able to put forward any sort of cohesive appeal. And if they held that opinion, it is perfectly reasonable for others to see where they were coming from, even if that opinion was legally refuted at the ECHR.
I think the fact that the action was listened to in the appeal court rather suggests that it was competent.
Had it not been so it would never have reached that stage and would have fallen at the first hurdle. Therefore the action was competent and the lawyers were competent in bringing it.
The unanimous verdict of the seven judges gives the lie to that and there is no clarity given as to why that should be.
I think somewhere in all of this is a lesson in the swings and roundabouts of court actions. Particularly in the long drawn out period over which this one has taken place.
I remain at a loss why Amaral has been allowed to make his libellous statements for over fifteen years and will continue to do so as we have seen and all sanctioned by the European Court of Human Rights. If the McCanns do not have the legal right to protection from Amaral's accusations - and that is so - I think a long hard look needs to be taken to procedures.
-
The fact is he said it, thats not in dispute .The legend is writ, you'll understand in the end.
Exactly the same as the court pronouncing the cadaver alert as a fact
You will never understand
-
I was rather referring to why did the case ever go before the ECHR in the first place, given that it was apparently obvious to all sceptics right from the start that the McCanns didn't have a leg to stand on.
Perhaps those that didn't think the McCann's would win had a better legal knowledge than the resident expert on here.
-
I think the fact that the action was listened to in the appeal court rather suggests that it was competent.
Had it not been so it would never have reached that stage and would have fallen at the first hurdle. Therefore the action was competent and the lawyers were competent in bringing it.
The unanimous verdict of the seven judges gives the lie to that and there is no clarity given as to why that should be.
I think somewhere in all of this is a lesson in the swings and roundabouts of court actions. Particularly in the long drawn out period over which this one has taken place.
I remain at a loss why Amaral has been allowed to make his libellous statements for over fifteen years and will continue to do so as we have seen and all sanctioned by the European Court of Human Rights. If the McCanns do not have the legal right to protection from Amaral's accusations - and that is so - I think a long hard look needs to be taken to procedures.
There's a modicum of acceptance in there, but then pivots at the end to trot out the latest excuse....the process is inherently wrong. At least you have, albeit belatedly, arrived at the last bastion; the psychological cul-de-sac. There's nowehere else to go now, except back the way you came, on the horse you rode in on.
We, the sceptical arbiter, will not forget your prevarication and forlorn defiance.
-
I didn't know who the lawyers were 3 days ago... Only found out in the published judgement.
I'm astonished at the choice.
You wouldnt ask your GP to give you a heart transplant.
This is the same lawyer who lost the case in Portugal
This is the crux of it.
You were so confident the McCaans would win. From your post a couple of days before the announcement there is no doubt in your mind, you knew European law not just better than anyone on this forum but any forum. I will spare your blushes and not reproduce the whole embarrassing post.
But the only way out for you to not admit you were wrong and your whole ego would collapse like a pack of cards is to find someone else to blame for your confident prediction being totally wrong (7-0).
In steps the inept lawyers into your mind, “of course its not me who is wrong, the McCaans chose lawyers who know nothing about human rights law” you think.
You can supply no reason that the McCaans didn’t notice that they were inept in the 5 years that they used them but you picked up on their ineptness after a quick glance at their website three days ago.
You really are the gift that keeps giving.
-
Perhaps those that didn't think the McCann's would win had a better legal knowledge than the resident expert on here.
I didn't expect the court to accept BS as fact..sceptics actually think the BS is fact... That's the difference
-
I didn't expect the court to accept BS as fact..sceptics actually think the BS is fact... That's the difference
Did you expect the 'inept' lawyers to consider the court may 'accept BS as fact', given that the whole case was built around them? Because you never said.
-
I think the fact that the action was listened to in the appeal court rather suggests that it was competent.
Had it not been so it would never have reached that stage and would have fallen at the first hurdle. Therefore the action was competent and the lawyers were competent in bringing it.
The unanimous verdict of the seven judges gives the lie to that and there is no clarity given as to why that should be.
I think somewhere in all of this is a lesson in the swings and roundabouts of court actions. Particularly in the long drawn out period over which this one has taken place.
I remain at a loss why Amaral has been allowed to make his libellous statements for over fifteen years and will continue to do so as we have seen and all sanctioned by the European Court of Human Rights. If the McCanns do not have the legal right to protection from Amaral's accusations - and that is so - I think a long hard look needs to be taken to procedures.
Why the ECHR decided to examine their claim regarding Article 8;
The impugned statements made by G.A. in the book, documentary programme and interview concerned the applicants’ alleged involvement in hiding their daughter’s body, based on a theory that they had staged an abduction and on a presumed acts of negligence towards her. These statements were sufficiently serious to attract the application of Article 8.
https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng#{%22itemid%22:[%22002-13798%22]}
They decided that the Portuguese Appeal and Supreme Courts dealt with the case correctly.
-
Perhaps those that didn't think the McCann's would win had a better legal knowledge than the resident expert on here.
My point is that the McCanns lawyers obviously believed that there was a reasonable chance that they would win an appeal based presumably on similar reasoning to those on here who believed they would win. Personally I never claimed to know enough about ECHR law to call it, but if I had, I guess I would have stood a 50/50 chance of being right so I don't think there's much to brag about either way.
-
This is the crux of it.
You were so confident the McCaans would win. From your post a couple of days before the announcement there is no doubt in your mind, you knew European law not just better than anyone on this forum but any forum. I will spare your blushes and not reproduce the whole embarrassing post.
But the only way out for you to not admit you were wrong and your whole ego would collapse like a pack of cards is to find someone else to blame for your confident prediction being totally wrong (7-0).
In steps the inept lawyers into your mind, “of course its not me who is wrong, the McCaans chose lawyers who know nothing about human rights law” you think.
You can supply no reason that the McCaans didn’t notice that they were inept in the 5 years that they used them but you picked up on their ineptness after a quick glance at their website three days ago.
You really are the gift that keeps giving.
Icanhandlethetruth link=topic=12414.msg691718#msg691718 date=1663927960]
This is the crux of it.
You were so confident the McCaans would win. From your post a couple of days before the announcement there is no doubt in your mind, you knew European law not just better than anyone on this forum but any forum. I will spare your blushes and not reproduce the whole embarrassing post.
But the only way out for you to not admit you were wrong and your whole ego would collapse like a pack of cards is to find someone else to blame for your confident prediction being totally wrong (7-0).
In steps the inept lawyers into your mind, “of course its not me who is wrong, the McCaans chose lawyers who know nothing about human rights law” you think.
You can supply no reason that the McCaans didn’t notice that they were inept in the 5 years that they used them but you picked up on their ineptness after a quick glance at their website three days ago.
You really are the gift that keeps giving.
[/quote]
I expected the mccanns to hire competent lawyers... Im astonished they didn't.. Lawyers with a proven track record at the ECHR... That seems a very sensible to me unlike you who think an expert lawyer would have made no difference.. A really stupid comment imo
-
I think the fact that the action was listened to in the appeal court rather suggests that it was competent.
Had it not been so it would never have reached that stage and would have fallen at the first hurdle. Therefore the action was competent and the lawyers were competent in bringing it.
The unanimous verdict of the seven judges gives the lie to that and there is no clarity given as to why that should be.
I think somewhere in all of this is a lesson in the swings and roundabouts of court actions. Particularly in the long drawn out period over which this one has taken place.
I remain at a loss why Amaral has been allowed to make his libellous statements for over fifteen years and will continue to do so as we have seen and all sanctioned by the European Court of Human Rights. If the McCanns do not have the legal right to protection from Amaral's accusations - and that is so - I think a long hard look needs to be taken to procedures.
The laws of each and every country are solely the business of that country and it is not for foreign nationals to say how they should be amended.
-
A further explanation of what facts are in this context;
All that is part of the investigation, beyond this fact, are clues, means of evidence*, means of obtaining evidence** and theses or hypotheses that are proper to an investigation shelved for lack of evidence. It will therefore be understood that, when are put together the “facts ascertained in the investigation” and the “facts that are part of the investigation”, it is referred to means of obtaining evidence, means of evidence and clues that constitute the proper investigation and are documented in the inquiry.
page 11 https://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/v02.htm
You need to supply a cite for what the ECHR regard as facts
-
My point is that the McCanns lawyers obviously believed that there was a reasonable chance that they would win an appeal based presumably on similar reasoning to those on here who believed they would win. Personally I never claimed to know enough about ECHR law to call it, but if I had, I guess I would have stood a 50/50 chance of being right so I don't think there's much to brag about either way.
I was 50/50 on this. Bearing in mind that The ECHR don't appear to be obliged to read the book that started all this. But should they have to?
-
Did you expect the 'inept' lawyers to consider the court may 'accept BS as fact', given that the whole case was built around them? Because you never said.
I've been saying for several years that the McCanns would win because his opinions were not based on facts... And they are not
-
I've been saying for several years that the McCanns would win because his opinions were not based on facts... And they are not
You've been saying for 2 years that Wolters has solved the case when he obviously hasn't. Was that a fact based opinion?
-
I didn't expect the court to accept BS as fact..sceptics actually think the BS is fact... That's the difference
No, that's what you think the difference is. The fact is that the PJ thought the dogs alerted to cadaver odour and blood. Maybe they did, maybe they didn't. Either way it was written down in the PJ files and became part of the evidence. GA was therefore able to use it to support his theory.
-
I've been saying for several years that the McCanns would win because his opinions were not based on facts... And they are not
It must be so disappointing for your opinion to be ignored by seven eminent judges.
-
No, that's what you think the difference is. The fact is that the PJ thought the dogs alerted to cadaver odour and blood. Maybe they did, maybe they didn't. Either way it was written down in the PJ files and became part of the evidence. GA was therefore able to use it to support his theory.
Thats where you are wrong and the PJ are wrong....the PJ stated as a fact that the dogs alerted to cadaver odour...that is total BS and you would have to agree
-
I'm late to the wake, having taken time out to buy a new dummy and put my toys back in the pram.
Sometimes the law is an ass. I think this is one of those occasions, whereby the judgement sends a chilling message to families of any child who happens to go missing or be abducted. Should such families choose to engage with the media proactively in attempts to locate their child they run the risk of being deemed public figures and subsequently receive little protection against an accusations levelled at them, regardless of innocence or guilt.
Whilst the ruling may be legally correct based on the ECHR's interpretation of the Portuguese SC's ruling, and only the SC ruling not the case as a whole, imo it is both unethical and unjust. However, it has no bearing on the ongoing investigations into Madeleine's abduction and murder, despite Amaral's gleeful pronouncement to the contrary. Madeleine's murderer hasn't yet been charged.
The ECHR can be at odds with itself on occasions, with profound effects on the culture of an entire nation.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10456956
The appeal by Italy was successful.
https://www.theguardian.com/law/2011/mar/18/european-court-human-rights-crucifixes-allowed
-
It must be so disappointing for your opinion to be ignored by seven eminent judges.
You dont seem to be able to follow my what im saying..prob due to your poor understanding. the judges will only consider the points raised in the appication...mccanns inept lawyer didnt raise it
-
You dont seem to be able to follow my what im saying..prob due to your poor understanding. the judges will only consider the points raised in the appication...mccanns inept lawyer didnt raise it
You don't think Gerry would have badgered them about it, considering he was rather flustered about it at the SC?
-
I'm late to the wake, having taken time out to buy a new dummy and put my toys back in the pram.
Sometimes the law is an ass. I think this is one of those occasions, whereby the judgement sends a chilling message to families of any child who happens to go missing or be abducted. Should such families choose to engage with the media proactively in attempts to locate their child they run the risk of being deemed public figures and subsequently receive little protection against an accusations levelled at them, regardless of innocence or guilt.
Whilst the ruling may be legally correct based on the ECHR's interpretation of the Portuguese SC's ruling, and only the SC ruling not the case as a whole, imo it is both unethical and unjust. However, it has no bearing on the ongoing investigations into Madeleine's abduction and murder, despite Amaral's gleeful pronouncement to the contrary. Madeleine's murderer hasn't yet been charged.
The ECHR can be at odds with itself on occasions, with profound effects on the culture of an entire nation.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10456956
The appeal by Italy was successful.
https://www.theguardian.com/law/2011/mar/18/european-court-human-rights-crucifixes-allowed
are you suggesting 7 judges got it wrong...how very dare you
-
I'm late to the wake, having taken time out to buy a new dummy and put my toys back in the pram.
Sometimes the law is an ass. I think this is one of those occasions, whereby the judgement sends a chilling message to families of any child who happens to go missing or be abducted. Should such families choose to engage with the media proactively in attempts to locate their child they run the risk of being deemed public figures and subsequently receive little protection against an accusations levelled at them, regardless of innocence or guilt.
Whilst the ruling may be legally correct based on the ECHR's interpretation of the Portuguese SC's ruling, and only the SC ruling not the case as a whole, imo it is both unethical and unjust. However, it has no bearing on the ongoing investigations into Madeleine's abduction and murder, despite Amaral's gleeful pronouncement to the contrary. Madeleine's murderer hasn't yet been charged.
The ECHR can be at odds with itself on occasions, with profound effects on the culture of an entire nation.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10456956
The appeal by Italy was successful.
https://www.theguardian.com/law/2011/mar/18/european-court-human-rights-crucifixes-allowed
He's not going to be because he didn't murder her.
-
The laws of each and every country are solely the business of that country and it is not for foreign nationals to say how they should be amended.
Where did I say that national laws were for foreigners to amend? Please do not misinterpret my posts!
-
You dont seem to be able to follow my what im saying..prob due to your poor understanding. the judges will only consider the points raised in the appication...mccanns inept lawyer didnt raise it
Then more fool McCann for employing them.
He seems to have a record for employing failures
-
I was rather referring to why did the case ever go before the ECHR in the first place, given that it was apparently obvious to all sceptics right from the start that the McCanns didn't have a leg to stand on.
Well, I'm glad it did reach the ECHR....or else the mccs could have played the victims again if it hadn't.
Maybe they were hoping it didn't.
-
Then more fool McCann for employing them.
He seems to have a record for employing failures
ive already said that
-
Icanhandlethetruth link=topic=12414.msg691718#msg691718 date=1663927960]
This is the crux of it.
You were so confident the McCaans would win. From your post a couple of days before the announcement there is no doubt in your mind, you knew European law not just better than anyone on this forum but any forum. I will spare your blushes and not reproduce the whole embarrassing post.
But the only way out for you to not admit you were wrong and your whole ego would collapse like a pack of cards is to find someone else to blame for your confident prediction being totally wrong (7-0).
In steps the inept lawyers into your mind, “of course its not me who is wrong, the McCaans chose lawyers who know nothing about human rights law” you think.
You can supply no reason that the McCaans didn’t notice that they were inept in the 5 years that they used them but you picked up on their ineptness after a quick glance at their website three days ago.
You really are the gift that keeps giving.
I expected the mccanns to hire competent lawyers... Im astonished they didn't.. Lawyers with a proven track record at the ECHR... That seems a very sensible to me unlike you who think an expert lawyer would have made no difference.. A really stupid comment imo
I say again if you had read the judgement and had understood it you would see why the seven judges gave their verdict. It has nothing to do with inept lawyers. It is clear as anything with the five points raised in support of the verdict. You just can’t grasp it as you have fixed your mind in a certain direction.
-
No, that's what you think the difference is. The fact is that the PJ thought the dogs alerted to cadaver odour and blood. Maybe they did, maybe they didn't. Either way it was written down in the PJ files and became part of the evidence. GA was therefore able to use it to support his theory.
His Theory? That's a laugh.
-
Look, this is getting us nowhere. We should be focusing our combined efforts on finding Madeleine.
When I think of the years we've all spent arguing with each other over pointless minutiae of the case, rather than being out there actively looking for the abducted child I find it rather sad. We are letting Madeleine down with every wasteful stroke of our keyboards.
-
I was 50/50 on this. Bearing in mind that The ECHR don't appear to be obliged to read the book that started all this. But should they have to?
I don't think they should have to (although it really wouldn't have taken up much of their time). The process and procedures should be enough and obviously there was sufficient of that to allow the case to proceed to a hearing.
-
I say again if you had read the judgement and had understood it you would see why the seven judges gave their verdict. It has nothing to do with inept lawyers. It is clear as anything with the five points raised in support of the verdict. You just can’t grasp it as you have fixed your mind in a certain direction.
total twaddle...could you point out a flaw in my argument rather than ,.....you dont understand...you remind me of my daughter when she was 12
-
I say again if you had read the judgement and had understood it you would see why the seven judges gave their verdict. It has nothing to do with inept lawyers. It is clear as anything with the five points raised in support of the verdict. You just can’t grasp it as you have fixed your mind in a certain direction.
answer a simple question...do the alerts confirm the presence of cadaver odour...harrison and grime say no
-
answer a simple question...do the alerts confirm the presence of cadaver odour...harrison and grime say no
Well there's still no sign of a living Madeleine, she was looking a bit flaccid when the Smith family saw her, so I would say yes really.
-
No, that's what you think the difference is. The fact is that the PJ thought the dogs alerted to cadaver odour and blood. Maybe they did, maybe they didn't. Either way it was written down in the PJ files and became part of the evidence. GA was therefore able to use it to support his theory.
Which theory was that?
The one where a decomposing body was sloshing around in the back of the hire car.
Or the one where the repose of the elderly British lady was disturbed by invading her coffin and adding a further body prior to her alleged cremation?
-
What will Amaral do next is more my bag at the moment.
-
You need to supply a cite for what the ECHR regard as facts
Anything in the PJ files which GA used to build his theory.
-
total twaddle...could you point out a flaw in my argument rather than ,.....you dont understand...you remind me of my daughter when she was 12
Your argument seems to be the lawyers are incompetent because they lost.
You know nothing about them. You have just had a look at their website and decided this because it means you were not wrong if they were inept.
Maybe they have had success at the ECHR previously or maybe its their first case but they hired the best outside legal expertise to help in preparing the written submission.
You have made the assertion that they were incompetent so you should prove the evidence to back up your claims. I am not claiming they were or were not incompetent.
Whats wrong with being compared to your daughter when she was 12 by the way, surely you thought she was brilliant, no?
-
A further explanation of what facts are in this context;
All that is part of the investigation, beyond this fact, are clues, means of evidence*, means of obtaining evidence** and theses or hypotheses that are proper to an investigation shelved for lack of evidence. It will therefore be understood that, when are put together the “facts ascertained in the investigation” and the “facts that are part of the investigation”, it is referred to means of obtaining evidence, means of evidence and clues that constitute the proper investigation and are documented in the inquiry.
page 11 https://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/v02.htm
you are trying to show what the portuguese regard as facts...its the ECHR opinion thats important
-
Which theory was that?
The one where a decomposing body was sloshing around in the back of the hire car.
Or the one where the repose of the elderly British lady was disturbed by invading her coffin and adding a further body prior to her alleged cremation?
The one where she died in the holiday apartment & her parents faked an abduction.
Wolters is having a bit of problem overcoming that possibility.
-
What will Amaral do next is more my bag at the moment.
Could you hide a tennis racket in it?
-
answer a simple question...do the alerts confirm the presence of cadaver odour...harrison and grime say no
Depends the on the definition of confirm in the legal sense
-
Your argument seems to be the lawyers are incompetent because they lost.
You know nothing about them. You have just had a look at their website and decided this because it means you were not wrong if they were inept.
Maybe they have had success at the ECHR previously or maybe its their first case but they hired the best outside legal expertise to help in preparing the written submission.
You have made the assertion that they were incompetent so you should prove the evidence to back up your claims. I am not claiming they were or were not incompetent.
Whats wrong with being compared to your daughter when she was 12 by the way, surely you thought she was brilliant, no?
she was...you are not...but like many yougsters she repeatedlytold me..you dont understand..
try answering the important point...is it a fact that eddie alerted to cadaver odour..the answer is no
-
Depends the on the definition of confirm in the legal sense
you are stumped arent you...
whats the defn of facts in the ECHR judgement...lets try you with that one
-
she was...you are not...but like many yougsters she repeatedlytold me..you dont understand..
try answering the important point...is it a fact that eddie alerted to cadaver odour..the answer is no
She was right. Smart girl.
-
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.
-
His Theory? That's a laugh.
Yes, his theory which he was legally entitled to write a book explaining.
-
What will Amaral do next is more my bag at the moment.
Dr. Phil
-
Yes, his theory which he was legally entitled to write a book explaining.
One which the 3 investigative forces have been able to discard entirely.
Abduction is now proven, Wolters has solved the case, so I've been reliably informed.
-
Yes, his theory which he was legally entitled to write a book explaining.
Aren't we all. This could be a problem that no one was expecting.
-
Yes, his theory which he was legally entitled to write a book explaining.
A book whose conclusion 80% of readers agree with.
Even supporters were turned in their droves, some of whom post clandestinely here, I imagine.
-
A book whose conclusion 80% of readers agree with.
Even supporters were turned in their droves, some of whom post clandestinely here, I imagine.
what percentage of bible readers think the bible is true
-
what percentage of bible readers think the bible is true
Approximately 12%.
Here's why - the Bible is the most read book ever, most of whom will not be Christian. Bad example. Try another.
-
you are stumped arent you...
whats the defn of facts in the ECHR judgement...lets try you with that one
No, not stumped. in a legal sense confirmed could be
Criminal case - beyond reasonable doubt
Civil Case - balance of probabilities
In the judgement they referred to the civil case below
40. With regard to the facts, referring to the evidence which had been submitted by the parties, the Lisbon Court found the following established:
“...
6. The British police dogs “Eddie” and “Keela detected odor marks of human blood and corpse inside the Ocean Club's 5-A apartment.
7. British police dogs 'Eddie' and 'Keela' detected odor marks of human blood and cadaver inside the vehicle rented by the applicants ... after Madeleine disappeared.
Deductive reasoning can be applied to the above
Specifically trained dogs were introduced in the case ( Not random dogs)
Out of all the specifically trained dogs 2 were specifically chosen by the Nation Search Advisor (Increased specifically)
Trained dogs alerted multiple times (only in locations associated with the suspects and nowhere else)
On the balance of probabilities the civil court found the dogs alerted to which they were trained
Not everything is black and white
-
No, not stumped. in a legal sense confirmed could be
Criminal case - beyond reasonable doubt
Civil Case - balance of probabilities
In the judgement they referred to the civil case below
40. With regard to the facts, referring to the evidence which had been submitted by the parties, the Lisbon Court found the following established:
“...
6. The British police dogs “Eddie” and “Keela detected odor marks of human blood and corpse inside the Ocean Club's 5-A apartment.
7. British police dogs 'Eddie' and 'Keela' detected odor marks of human blood and cadaver inside the vehicle rented by the applicants ... after Madeleine disappeared.
Deductive reasoning can be applied to the above
Specifically trained dogs were introduced in the case ( Not random dogs)
Out of all the specifically trained dogs 2 were specifically chosen by the Nation Search Advisor (Increased specifically)
Trained dogs alerted multiple times (only in locations associated with the suspects and nowhere else)
On the balance of probabilities the civil court found the dogs alerted to which they were trained
Not everything is black and white
total twaddle..il explain why later.......which civil court decided the alertswere reliable....the civil court stated clearly they were not there to decide the truth of amarals claims
-
total twaddle..il explain why later.......which civil court decided the alertswere reliable....the civil court stated clearly they were not there to decide the truth of amarals claims
In short, the mccs rights were not damaged apart from what they did to themselves.
I anyone's rights were neglected it was Maddie's.
Why don't you just accept what I C H T T trying to explain to you and doing a good job ... you're not.
-
In short, the mccs rights were not damaged apart from what they did to themselves.
I anyone's rights were neglected it was Maddie's.
Why don't you just accept what I C H T T trying to explain to you and doing a good job ... you're not.
Because I'm right... Simple
-
total twaddle..il explain why later.......which civil court decided the alertswere reliable....the civil court stated clearly they were not there to decide the truth of amarals claims
According to the ECHR judgement, The Original Civil court proceedings of April 27, 2015 found
“...
6. The British police dogs “Eddie” and “Keela detected odor marks of human blood and corpse inside the Ocean Club's 5-A apartment.
7. British police dogs 'Eddie' and 'Keela' detected odor marks of human blood and cadaver inside the vehicle rented by the applicants ... after Madeleine disappeared.
As it had been established as proven by the balance of probabilities in the court of first instance there is no requirement for subsequent courts to to try and either reprove or disprove this.
Have you read the ECHR judgement?
-
In short, the mccs rights were not damaged apart from what they did to themselves.
I anyone's rights were neglected it was Maddie's.
Why don't you just accept what I C H T T trying to explain to you and doing a good job ... you're not.
I disagree. Had the McCanns subsequently been charged with any offences against Madeleine, they could have argued that the book denied them the right to a fair trial. Much of the "evidence" against them has already been leaked by the investigating team under the instruction of the book's author and reinforced by the book. However, if the case had never gone to trial the McCanns would never have been able to legally defend themselves/demonstrate their innocence so they'd remain in perpetual limbo in the absence of the real offender(s) being uncovered. This has been an exceptional legal stitch-up imo.
-
I disagree. Had the McCanns subsequently been charged with any offences against Madeleine, they could have argued that the book denied them the right to a fair trial. Much of the "evidence" against them has already been leaked by the investigating team under the instruction of the book's author and reinforced by the book. However, if the case had never gone to trial the McCanns would never have been able to legally defend themselves/demonstrate their innocence so they'd remain in perpetual limbo in the absence of the real offender(s) being uncovered. This has been an exceptional legal stitch-up imo.
Yes, there seems to be belief that the McCanns should have just remained silent and accepting in the face of such a public and determined accusation in the form of Amaral's bestselling book. Why the hell should they, can anyone explain?
-
Yes, there seems to be belief that the McCanns should have just remained silent and accepting in the face of such a public and determined accusation in the form of Amaral's bestselling book. Why the hell should they, can anyone explain?
Well, complaining about it hasn't got them anywhere has it.
-
No, not stumped. in a legal sense confirmed could be
Criminal case - beyond reasonable doubt
Civil Case - balance of probabilities
In the judgement they referred to the civil case below
40. With regard to the facts, referring to the evidence which had been submitted by the parties, the Lisbon Court found the following established:
“...
6. The British police dogs “Eddie” and “Keela detected odor marks of human blood and corpse inside the Ocean Club's 5-A apartment.
7. British police dogs 'Eddie' and 'Keela' detected odor marks of human blood and cadaver inside the vehicle rented by the applicants ... after Madeleine disappeared.
Deductive reasoning can be applied to the above
Specifically trained dogs were introduced in the case ( Not random dogs)
Out of all the specifically trained dogs 2 were specifically chosen by the Nation Search Advisor (Increased specifically)
Trained dogs alerted multiple times (only in locations associated with the suspects and nowhere else)
On the balance of probabilities the civil court found the dogs alerted to which they were trained
Not everything is black and white
Nor even shades of grey.
Have you never pondered why "Trained dogs alerted multiple times (only in locations associated with the suspects and nowhere else)"
Check out The States of Jersey 2010 debacle then I wonder if you would be so kind as to indicate exactly where you found "On the balance of probabilities the civil court found the dogs alerted to which they were trained" and share with us.
-
Nor even shades of grey.
Have you never pondered why "Trained dogs alerted multiple times (only in locations associated with the suspects and nowhere else)"
Check out The States of Jersey 2010 debacle then I wonder if you would be so kind as to indicate exactly where you found "On the balance of probabilities the civil court found the dogs alerted to which they were trained" and share with us.
I didn't find it , the court did.
-
I disagree. Had the McCanns subsequently been charged with any offences against Madeleine, they could have argued that the book denied them the right to a fair trial. Much of the "evidence" against them has already been leaked by the investigating team under the instruction of the book's author and reinforced by the book. However, if the case had never gone to trial the McCanns would never have been able to legally defend themselves/demonstrate their innocence so they'd remain in perpetual limbo in the absence of the real offender(s) being uncovered. This has been an exceptional legal stitch-up imo.
This has been an exceptional legal stitch-up imo.
Who by.... and for what reason would that be.
They are not appealing ......so why would you think that is...
They should never have gone after GA in the first place....I believe they wished they hadnt.
-
This has been an exceptional legal stitch-up imo.
Who by.... and for what reason would that be.
They are not appealing ......so why would you think that is...
They should never have gone after GA in the first place....I believe they wished they hadnt.
I wouldn't jump the gun, they've got 3 months to stew over it.
They could of course use that time to search for Maddie instead, but we know that's not going to happen.
-
This has been an exceptional legal stitch-up imo.
Who by.... and for what reason would that be.
They are not appealing ......so why would you think that is...
They should never have gone after GA in the first place....I believe they wished they hadnt.
Please explain why they shouldn't have. Imagine you are the subject of a bestselling book which claims you committed unspeakable acts - what do you do?
-
Please explain why they shouldn't have. Imagine you are the subject of a bestselling book which claims you committed unspeakable acts - what do you?
Confess instead of having to spend the rest of my life pretending my daughter was abducted.
-
I didn't find it , the court did.
Not that I am questioning your veracity but I rather feel that your assertion requires a cite which will enable me to form my own opinion.
I will be obliged if you will provide one. Thankyou
-
Not that I am questioning your veracity but I rather feel that your assertion requires a cite which will enable me to form my own opinion.
I will be obliged if you will provide one. Thankyou
I reckon the judges just pulled a decision at random from a bag full of yes/no's
-
Not that I am questioning your veracity but I rather feel that your assertion requires a cite which will enable me to form my own opinion.
I will be obliged if you will provide one. Thankyou
Have you read the ECHR judgement? I have posted this several times but once again
From the ECHR full judgement:
40. With regard to the facts, referring to the evidence which had been submitted by the parties, the Lisbon Court found the following established:
“...
6. The British police dogs “Eddie” and “Keela detected odor marks of human blood and corpse inside the Ocean Club's 5-A apartment.
7. British police dogs 'Eddie' and 'Keela' detected odor marks of human blood and cadaver inside the vehicle rented by the applicants ... after Madeleine disappeared.
(...)
If you feel I have taken something out of context please feel free to read the whole judgement.
-
This has been an exceptional legal stitch-up imo.
Who by.... and for what reason would that be.
They are not appealing ......so why would you think that is...
They should never have gone after GA in the first place....I believe they wished they hadnt.
They have publicly announced why they are not appealing the decision. Did you miss it?
A short precis ::: they don't have to - there is a very active police investigation into Madeleine's case in progress. When they started this action there was none and the only people looking for Madeleine was them and Amaral was damaging that.
-
They have publicly announced why they are not appealing the decision. Did you miss it?
A short precis ::: they don't have to - there is a very active police investigation into Madeleine's case in progress. When they started this action there was none and the only people looking for Madeleine was them and Amaral was damaging that.
And what have you been doing to help find Maddie?
-
Have you read the ECHR judgement? I have posted this several times but once again
From the ECHR full judgement:
40. With regard to the facts, referring to the evidence which had been submitted by the parties, the Lisbon Court found the following established:
“...
6. The British police dogs “Eddie” and “Keela detected odor marks of human blood and corpse inside the Ocean Club's 5-A apartment.
7. British police dogs 'Eddie' and 'Keela' detected odor marks of human blood and cadaver inside the vehicle rented by the applicants ... after Madeleine disappeared.
(...)
If you feel I have taken something out of context please feel free to read the whole judgement.
I've answered it several times.. And discussed it on this forum for several years... The alerts to cadaver are not facts.. Not true.. Lies... My question is how did they get accepted as fact's. Its like saying CB is guilty because HCW said so.
-
I've answered it several times.. And discussed it on this forum for several years... The alerts to cadaver are not facts.. Not true.. Lies... My question is how did they get accepted as fact's. Its like saying CB is guilty because HCW said so.
Please understand, in a civil case the threshold is on the balance of possibilities, in a criminal case its beyond reasonable doubt.
The empirical fact is the civil court of the first instance found it to be established that the alerts were to blood and cadaver. You can't change that. You can disagree with the findings but thats all you can do.
-
This has been an exceptional legal stitch-up imo.
Who by.... and for what reason would that be.
They are not appealing ......so why would you think that is...
They should never have gone after GA in the first place....I believe they wished they hadnt.
It was designed to almost guarantee that the real perpetrator(s) would never be sought, let alone caught. I don't believe GA ever thought the McCanns would be so tenacious in the face of such adversity or that UK police would have launched such a thorough review of the case.
GA should never have written the book. Period. Its contents and his public slurs of them warranted legal action.
Now he has formally been allowed to profit from such slurs - maybe that will actually work against him in the future.
IMO the McCanns have chosen not to appeal because of potential action against Brueckner by BKA within the next few weeks. We have been told that Amaral's actions were never about the money. I wonder how the Portuguese public will view his reputation/honour in the event of Brueckner being convicted of previously unsolved serious crimes which fell under his jurisdiction? Had Brueckner been caught then maybe Madeleine wouldn't have been abducted.
-
Please understand, in a civil case the threshold is on the balance of possibilities, in a criminal case its beyond reasonable doubt.
The empirical fact is the civil court of the first instance found it to be established that the alerts were to blood and cadaver. You can't change that. You can disagree with the findings but thats all you can do.
Impotently shakes fist in the face of Authority @)(++(*
-
Impotently shakes fist in the face of Authority @)(++(*
I tell you, I know how his 12 year old daughter felt. She's obviously the brains in the family.
-
Impotently shakes fist in the face of Authority @)(++(*
Isn't that what a Miscarriage Of Justice Forum is all about? Disagreeing with legal decisions? do you disapprove of people disagreeing with legal decisions? Proper lot of little conformists aintcha.
-
It was designed to almost guarantee that the real perpetrator(s) would never be sought, let alone caught. I don't believe GA ever thought the McCanns would be so tenacious in the face of such adversity or that UK police would have launched such a thorough review of the case.
GA should never have written the book. Period. Its contents and his public slurs of them warranted legal action.
Now he has formally been allowed to profit from such slurs - maybe that will actually work against him in the future.
IMO the McCanns have chosen not to appeal because of potential action against Brueckner by BKA within the next few weeks. We have been told that Amaral's actions were never about the money. I wonder how the Portuguese public will view his reputation/honour in the event of Brueckner being convicted of previously unsolved serious crimes which fell under his jurisdiction? Had Brueckner been caught then maybe Madeleine wouldn't have been abducted.
She wasn't.
-
My point is that the McCanns lawyers obviously believed that there was a reasonable chance that they would win an appeal based presumably on similar reasoning to those on here who believed they would win. Personally I never claimed to know enough about ECHR law to call it, but if I had, I guess I would have stood a 50/50 chance of being right so I don't think there's much to brag about either way.
At least you're big enough to admit that.
-
I prefer to gloat rather than brag. So much more satisfying. 8(>((
-
Please explain why they shouldn't have. Imagine you are the subject of a bestselling book which claims you committed unspeakable acts - what do you do?
That's my point ......it wouldn't have been the best-selling book if it wasn't for the mccs going after GA.
-
I disagree. Had the McCanns subsequently been charged with any offences against Madeleine, they could have argued that the book denied them the right to a fair trial. Much of the "evidence" against them has already been leaked by the investigating team under the instruction of the book's author and reinforced by the book. However, if the case had never gone to trial the McCanns would never have been able to legally defend themselves/demonstrate their innocence so they'd remain in perpetual limbo in the absence of the real offender(s) being uncovered. This has been an exceptional legal stitch-up imo.
7 judges of differing nationalities unanimously agreed to the outcome, so the only argument for a legal stitch up would be the McCann's ( lawyers) took the wrong option to the ECHR.
-
They have publicly announced why they are not appealing the decision. Did you miss it?
A short precis ::: they don't have to - there is a very active police investigation into Madeleine's case in progress. When they started this action there was none and the only people looking for Madeleine was them and Amaral was damaging that.
Amaral was damaging that.
But he wasn't was he.
*****
97. Finally, the Court notes that, after the publication of the book, the applicants continued their media activities. In particular, they made a documentary about their daughter's disappearance and continued to give interviews to the media at international level (see paragraph 40 (paragraphs 68 and 71) above). While the Court understands that the publication of the book undoubtedly caused the applicants anger, anxiety and concern (see paragraph 40 (paragraph 81) above), it does not appear that the book or the broadcasting of the documentary had any serious impact on their social relations or on their continuing legitimate search for their daughter.
-
That's my point ......it wouldn't have been the best-selling book if it wasn't for the mccs going after GA.
Exactly. He used his right to reply......and how!
Another gubbing for the pair at the hands of the porky, sozzled, incompetent cop. I've lost count of the score.
-
I prefer to gloat rather than brag. So much more satisfying. 8(>((
Oh dear. You poor soul.
-
It was designed to almost guarantee that the real perpetrator(s) would never be sought, let alone caught. I don't believe GA ever thought the McCanns would be so tenacious in the face of such adversity or that UK police would have launched such a thorough review of the case.
GA should never have written the book. Period. Its contents and his public slurs of them warranted legal action.
Now he has formally been allowed to profit from such slurs - maybe that will actually work against him in the future.
IMO the McCanns have chosen not to appeal because of potential action against Brueckner by BKA within the next few weeks. We have been told that Amaral's actions were never about the money. I wonder how the Portuguese public will view his reputation/honour in the event of Brueckner being convicted of previously unsolved serious crimes which fell under his jurisdiction? Had Brueckner been caught then maybe Madeleine wouldn't have been abducted.
It depends on the case I think.
For example there was no distraction when many years after the rape of the American woman in Prai da Luz justice was served.
At that time there was no association with Madeleine's case.
-
That's my point ......it wouldn't have been the best-selling book if it wasn't for the mccs going after GA.
The book had already sold thousands of copies before any legal action was taken, what do you mean?
-
It was designed to almost guarantee that the real perpetrator(s) would never be sought, let alone caught. I don't believe GA ever thought the McCanns would be so tenacious in the face of such adversity or that UK police would have launched such a thorough review of the case.
GA should never have written the book. Period. Its contents and his public slurs of them warranted legal action.
Now he has formally been allowed to profit from such slurs - maybe that will actually work against him in the future.
IMO the McCanns have chosen not to appeal because of potential action against Brueckner by BKA within the next few weeks. We have been told that Amaral's actions were never about the money. I wonder how the Portuguese public will view his reputation/honour in the event of Brueckner being convicted of previously unsolved serious crimes which fell under his jurisdiction? Had Brueckner been caught then maybe Madeleine wouldn't have been abducted.
An entire wall of text dedicated to whingeing. Everybody else's fault. If only he hadn't written the book, if only GA had caught CB for other crimes. How about if only they didn't leave their 3 nursery age kids alone to out out on the pop? No? Thought not.
-
At least you're big enough to admit that.
I have never claimed to be able to predict the future nor to be an expert on anything, simply offering my humble opinions which you can either take or leave as you wish.
-
Amaral was damaging that.
But he wasn't was he.
*****
97. Finally, the Court notes that, after the publication of the book, the applicants continued their media activities. In particular, they made a documentary about their daughter's disappearance and continued to give interviews to the media at international level (see paragraph 40 (paragraphs 68 and 71) above). While the Court understands that the publication of the book undoubtedly caused the applicants anger, anxiety and concern (see paragraph 40 (paragraph 81) above), it does not appear that the book or the broadcasting of the documentary had any serious impact on their social relations or on their continuing legitimate search for their daughter.
OK, so everyone in Portugal never ceased in their efforts to find Madeleine firmly discarding the innefective opinions he and his associates were spouting from every chat show sofa in the land at every chance they could.
-
OK, so everyone in Portugal never ceased in their efforts to find Madeleine firmly discarding the innefective opinions he and his associates were spouting from every chat show sofa in the land at every chance they could.
No.
Unless you can show otherwise.
-
OK, so everyone in Portugal never ceased in their efforts to find Madeleine firmly discarding the innefective opinions he and his associates were spouting from every chat show sofa in the land at every chance they could.
Why should the people of Portugal, or anywhere else for that matter spend time looking for Madeliene ? They didn't lose her.
-
An entire wall of text dedicated to whingeing. Everybody else's fault. If only he hadn't written the book, if only GA had caught CB for other crimes. How about if only they didn't leave their 3 nursery age kids alone to out out on the pop? No? Thought not.
It's a sequence of systemic failures, not an isolated incident. The police are responsible for removing those who've committed crime from the streets so children can sleep more safely in their homes/holiday apartments, amongst other things. Shame on you for victim-blaming.
-
I have never claimed to be able to predict the future nor to be an expert on anything, simply offering my humble opinions which you can either take or leave as you wish.
As I have said, this ruling is no longer of any importance.
The decision of The ECHR is somewhat of worry to me but I can't be bothered getting into the legal conclusion since it isn't going to affect the Case in Germany, or anywhere else.
The McCanns are never going to be arrested, although Madeleine might never be found alive or dead.
-
Why should the people of Portugal, or anywhere else for that matter spend time looking for Madeliene ? They didn't lose her.
Why was it so important for Amaral & his cronies to speak about the case in the media at every given opportunity if her disappearance was unimportant?
-
OK, so everyone in Portugal never ceased in their efforts to find Madeleine firmly discarding the innefective opinions he and his associates were spouting from every chat show sofa in the land at every chance they could.
A very large part of The Portuguese population were too afraid to protest. Although a few brave souls did.
-
It's a sequence of systemic failures, not an isolated incident. The police are responsible for removing those who've committed crime from the streets so children can sleep more safely in their homes/holiday apartments, amongst other things. Shame on you for victim-blaming.
Exactly. Child molesters and abductors and murderers can usually only commit their crimes because of a certain degree of laxity on the part of the children's parents (except of course where the child's parents are complicit). So, are we to condemn those children to their fate at the hands of such abusers simply because we disapprove of their parents' laxity and only charge the parents not those perpetrating the crimes? I genuinely believe that there are some people here who would be OK with that.
-
A very large part of The Portuguese population were too afraid to protest. Although a few brave souls did.
Are we talking about Salazar? I know you're 'more senior' but that's a stretch.
-
Why should the people of Portugal, or anywhere else for that matter spend time looking for Madeliene ? They didn't lose her.
Doesn't really matter who lost her. Quite extraordinary you endorse ignoring missing children but not at all a surprise.
-
Why was it so important for Amaral & his cronies to speak about the case in the media at every given opportunity if her disappearance was unimportant?
Disappearing of one little girl was not particularly important, except to the family.
It was however newsworthy, hence all the widespread media interest.
-
It's a sequence of systemic failures, not an isolated incident. The police are responsible for removing those who've committed crime from the streets so children can sleep more safely in their homes/holiday apartments, amongst other things. Shame on you for victim-blaming.
It is a sequence. It starts with the McCann's negligence. Irrespective of how evil CB is / was, if they take the kids out, or stay in with them instead of getting wet mortal every night, there' wouldn't be this notional kidnapping.
Shame on you for CB blaming. Shame on you. Booo.
-
Doesn't really matter who lost her. Quite extraordinary you endorse ignoring missing children but not at all a surprise.
I don't see why. Looking for her is not my responsibility.
-
Exactly. Child molesters and abductors and murderers can usually only commit their crimes because of a certain degree of laxity on the part of the children's parents (except of course where the child's parents are complicit). So, are we to condemn those children to their fate at the hands of such abusers simply because we disapprove of their parents' laxity and only charge the parents not those perpetrating the crimes? I genuinely believe that there are some people here who would be OK with that.
If there is any raison d'etre for hating the parents, I fail to see why there is a transference to the child. Nor do I see how any rational person can keep up and embellish it for over fifteen years. Definitely not healthy.
The active and passive resistance to proper investigation is really the creepiest aspect.
-
Disappearing of one little girl was not particularly important, except to the family.
It was however newsworthy, hence all the widespread media interest.
A criminal act was perpetrated on an innocent and you appear to be advocating ignoring that.
-
A criminal act was perpetrated on an innocent and you appear to be advocating ignoring that.
They investigated and found their suspects. Did you miss it?
There's files and everything.
-
It is a sequence. It starts with the McCann's negligence. Irrespective of how evil CB is / was, if they take the kids out, or stay in with them instead of getting wet mortal every night, there' wouldn't be this notional kidnapping.
Shame on you for CB blaming. Shame on you. Booo.
There is quite a long list of children who were abducted whilst their parents were on the premises. Some of those (innocent) parents were accused of heinous crimes and at least one jailed following a forced confession.
Anyway, it must be heartening to know that EU policemen now have the ECHR's blessing to investigate a crime with little consideration for the victim and one eye on a lucrative book deal to finance an early retirement.
-
I don't see why. Looking for her is not my responsibility.
Did I say it was?
Shirking any notion of accepting responsibility for anything seems to be a 'thing' amongst sceptics though.
A talent shared by the Portuguese judiciary who shrugged off responsibility for looking for a child lost in their jurisdiction within months.
-
There is quite a long list of children who were abducted whilst their parents were on the premises. Some of those (innocent) parents were accused of heinous crimes and at least one jailed following a forced confession.
Anyway, it must be heartening to know that EU policemen now have the ECHR's blessing to investigate a crime with little consideration for the victim and one eye on a lucrative book deal to finance an early retirement.
Show us the list. Play listy for me? ...doesn't work.
-
It is a sequence. It starts with the McCann's negligence. Irrespective of how evil CB is / was, if they take the kids out, or stay in with them instead of getting wet mortal every night, there' wouldn't be this notional kidnapping.
Shame on you for CB blaming. Shame on you. Booo.
All The McCanns had to do was wait until morning if they were trying to cover up anything. But they is way too simple for some.
-
A criminal act was perpetrated on an innocent and you appear to be advocating ignoring that.
The disappearance was investigated, involving considerable time and cost. No charges were brought and the case was closed pending the discovery of further evidence.
Happens all the time, everywhere.
-
There is quite a long list of children who were abducted whilst their parents were on the premises. Some of those (innocent) parents were accused of heinous crimes and at least one jailed following a forced confession.
Anyway, it must be heartening to know that EU policemen now have the ECHR's blessing to investigate a crime with little consideration for the victim and one eye on a lucrative book deal to finance an early retirement.
Even if that early retirement is precipitated by sacking from a live case in the face of a looming criminal trial (subsequently lost).
-
Why was it so important for Amaral & his cronies to speak about the case in the media at every given opportunity if her disappearance was unimportant?
Well, I'm glad you're calling it disappearance...and not abduction.
-
All The McCanns had to do was wait until morning if they were trying to cover up anything. But they is way too simple for some.
I like that premise. I like it a lot.
I'll see your delayed reaction theory and raise you a Martin Smith.
''....ooooh, when Irish eyes are similing, upon your bonny face.....''
-
Why was it so important for Amaral & his cronies to speak about the case in the media at every given opportunity if her disappearance was unimportant?
Money.
-
Even if that early retirement is precipitated by sacking from a live case in the face of a looming criminal trial (subsequently lost).
....GA hears his choon coming on....jumps up off his lounger.......
....She had them Apple Bottom Jeans [Jeans]
Boots with the fur [With the fur]
The whole club lookin at her
She hit the floor [She hit the floor]
Next thing you know
Shawty got low low low low low low low low.....
Yeahh baby! You go Gonzo lad!
He's probably hittin' the beak like a loon....
-
A criminal act was perpetrated on an innocent and you appear to be advocating ignoring that.
How do you know ....what act took place ...you don't.
Or know who perpetrated the criminal act.
-
The disappearance was investigated, involving considerable time and cost. No charges were brought and the case was closed pending the discovery of further evidence.
Happens all the time, everywhere.
Amaral wasn't looking for Madeleine. He was looking for a patsy. His first choice of Murat was a poor one, despite his Englishness he was the scion of a locally powerful family.
Plan B patsy then had to be introduced. Well it had worked a treat just a few miles up the road in Joana's case.
Thing is no trace of Joana was ever found. Just as no trace of Madeleine was ever found. I think that is probably the norm when the emphasis is on finding a patsy and not the missing child.
-
Amaral wasn't looking for Madeleine. He was looking for a patsy. His first choice of Murat was a poor one, despite his Englishness he was the scion of a locally powerful family.
Plan B patsy then had to be introduced. Well it had worked a treat just a few miles up the road in Joana's case.
Thing is no trace of Joana was ever found. Just as no trace of Madeleine was ever found. I think that is probably the norm when the emphasis is on finding a patsy and not the missing child.
I wonder why he zero'ed in on Murat? Who could have pointed the finger?
-
How do you know ....what act took place ...you don't.
Or know who perpetrated the criminal act.
Read very carefully for I shall say this only once "A criminal act was perpetrated against Madeleine McCann"
I see you accept that already though.
-
I like that premise. I like it a lot.
I'll see your delayed reaction theory and raise you a Martin Smith.
''....ooooh, when Irish eyes are similing, upon your bonny face.....''
You don't know much about the Irish.
-
You don't know much about the Irish.
I almost broke out an emoji then.....you know where I live?
-
Read very carefully for I shall say this only once "A criminal act was perpetrated against Madeleine McCann"
I see you accept that already though.
Child neglect is technically criminality. So that's a definite.
-
Child neglect is technically criminality. So that's a definite.
Not according to The Portuguese who said that there was no criminal intent.
-
I like that premise. I like it a lot.
I'll see your delayed reaction theory and raise you a Martin Smith.
''....ooooh, when Irish eyes are similing, upon your bonny face.....''
I absolutely believe that if Amaral had been in charge long enough to oversee the return of Martin Smith to Portugal for a second statement implicating Gerry as Smithman then the parents would have been charged with cadaver concealment at the very least.
-
There is not one scintilla (your fave word) of evidence that the McCanns are either police suspects or being investigated by the police so you are simply fantasizing having been taken in by the pronouncements of a gossip and a liar. Now this is off topic so I suggest we leave it there.
As has said time and time by the true believers, the police should not and will not give any details of their lines of investigation so who knows who’s being investigated…except of course Brueckner.
-
Yes, there seems to be belief that the McCanns should have just remained silent and accepting in the face of such a public and determined accusation in the form of Amaral's bestselling book. Why the hell should they, can anyone explain?
Do you really believe that this was ‘a legal stitch up’? By who? For what reason?
-
As has said time and time by the true believers, the police should not and will not give any details of their lines of investigation so who knows who’s being investigated…except of course Brueckner.
You just can’t let it lie can you? If you truly believe the McCanns have been investigated for the last god knows how many years all I can say to you is tick tock, won’t be long now… @)(++(*
-
Do you really believe that this was ‘a legal stitch up’? By who? For what reason?
How on earth did you come to that conclusion from what I wrote?
-
Read very carefully for I shall say this only once "A criminal act was perpetrated against Madeleine McCann"
I see you accept that already though.
Right..but ....what ....we.......dont ....know ...is ....who ....by.
-
Right..but ....what ....we.......dont ....know ...is ....who ....by.
Right..but ....what ....we......do.....know ...is ....who ....there is no evidence against and never ever was.
-
Right..but ....what ....we......do.....know ...is ....who ....there is no evidence against and never ever was.
Herr Brueckner! Boom! We are on a roll tonight sister!
-
How on earth did you come to that conclusion from what I wrote?
Misty appeared to believe that it was a legal stitch up and you seemed to agree. Apologies if I’m wrong.
-
Misty appeared to believe that it was a legal stitch up and you seemed to agree. Apologies if I’m wrong.
Yes you are wrong and apology accepted.
-
I wonder why he zero'ed in on Murat? Who could have pointed the finger?
Jane Tanner took part in an undercover exercise to identify Murat.
-
Jane Tanner took part in an undercover exercise to identify Murat.
But failed to do so.
-
We've gone completely off topic now, but what if, maybe, Murat knew Brueckner? They both lived in the area so it's not impossible. Maybe Tanner did see Murat?
Wolters seems slightly unsure CB was the abductor, so maybe the unidentified lifter passed Maddie to AN Other who then passed her on to Brueckner?
I think it's all starting to make sense now.
Yes, that's my new theory.
-
We've gone completely off topic now, but what if, maybe, Murat knew Brueckner? They both lived in the area so it's not impossible. Maybe Tanner did see Murat?
Wolters seems slightly unsure CB was the abductor, so maybe the unidentified lifter passed Maddie to AN Other who then passed her on to Brueckner?
I think it's all starting to make sense now.
Yes, that's my new theory.
There's some merit to this theory. Tanner pinged Murat in the blacked out van, as she and Paine essentially fingered Murat. Yes, she was somewhat confused, but she was adamant when she pointed him out at least.
CB was the wheel man; like Baby Driver, but with a twist. He transfers her to one of his many vehicles, then again to the Jag that he quickly transfers ownership of to a contact in Germany - his intended destination.
We are now on a roll.
-
We've gone completely off topic now, but what if, maybe, Murat knew Brueckner? They both lived in the area so it's not impossible. Maybe Tanner did see Murat?
Wolters seems slightly unsure CB was the abductor, so maybe the unidentified lifter passed Maddie to AN Other who then passed her on to Brueckner?
I think it's all starting to make sense now.
Yes, that's my new theory.
Hold on there, Smithy was the only one seen carrying a child matching a description close to that of Madeleine .
-
Hold on there, Smithy was the only one seen carrying a child matching a description close to that of Madeleine .
Hmmm. That's a problem. Maybe we should try to discredit this entire Irish family in some way? That'll leave Tannerman back in the frame.
-
Hold on there, Smithy was the only one seen carrying a child matching a description close to that of Madeleine .
That was a decoy Maddie with a man impersonating her father.
It was all part of the plan.
-
That was a decoy Maddie with a man impersonating her father.
It was all part of the plan.
Malinka? Did someone torch his wheels as a warning? IMHAEO
-
Hmmm. That's a problem. Maybe we should try to discredit this entire Irish family in some way? That'll leave Tannerman back in the frame.
No need for anyone to want to discredit the Irish family.. Nor the hundreds of thousands who have seen a live Maddie
-
No need for anyone to want to discredit the Irish family.. Nor the hundreds of thousands who have seen a live Maddie
Did they see her on the night though? This pesky Smith character still maintains he saw Gerry, to a some level of certainty, at the time, on the night. That's significant and it needs snuffing out, metaphorically speaking.
Then we can look again at the potential CB / Murat axis of evil.
-
Did they see her on the night though? This pesky Smith character still maintains he saw Gerry, to a some level of certainty, at the time, on the night. That's significant and it needs snuffing out, metaphorically speaking.
Then we can look again at the potential CB / Murat axis of evil.
Who says its significant.. How reliable do you think his evidence is... He saw a man with a child.... Not even the man's face.
-
Who says its significant.. How reliable do you think his evidence is... He saw a man with a child.... Not even the man's face.
How significant? The only eye witness. In any case eye witnesses are significant, but this one came forward and injected himself in to an absolute maelstrom, with no regard for himself and for no gain.
It needs surpressing.
-
Who says its significant.. How reliable do you think his evidence is... He saw a man with a child.... Not even the man's face.
He knew he didn't have glasses on, so how did he ascertain that if he didn't see his face?
-
He knew he didn't have glasses on, so how did he ascertain that if he didn't see his face?
Also reported that CB didn't resemble the man seen carrying a child matching a description close to that of Madeleine.
-
How significant? The only eye witness. In any case eye witnesses are significant, but this one came forward and injected himself in to an absolute maelstrom, with no regard for himself and for no gain.
It needs surpressing.
You are right.. I've spent 15 years online defending their innocence.. I'm getting a bit p****D off.. Its about time they got off their arses and defended themselves.... If it was me I'd be on every talk show answering all these points and telling everyone what a to**er Amaral is. But there again I wouldn't leave my 3 kids in an unlocked apt and go out and get pi**Ed... Even though they're all in their forties... You just shouldn't leave children alone in the house
-
You are right.. I've spent 15 years online defending their innocence.. I'm getting a bit p****D off.. Its about time they got off their arses and defended themselves.... If it was me I'd be on every talk show answering all these points and telling everyone what a to**er Amaral is. But there again I wouldn't leave my 3 kids in an unlocked apt and go out and get pi**Ed... Even though they're all in their forties... You just shouldn't leave children alone in the house
We could say he was drunk. Or his daughter was simple.
We could get Murat to torch his......potting shed.
If he doesn't rue the day he got involved, he ruddy well will do.*
*no threats have been made or implied during the production of this post. All content is the opinion of the poster and is to be deemed irony at all times. This extends to all future posts made by said poster.
This post is free to be used under the applicable in country Fair Use Agreements.
Your home is at risk if you set fire to it or back a JCB in to the rear patio doors.
-
Also reported that CB didn't resemble the man seen carrying a child matching a description close to that of Madeleine.
You're just trying to unpick our new theory. It won't work. It's watertight like a Tupperware container.
-
Who says its significant.. How reliable do you think his evidence is... He saw a man with a child.... Not even the man's face.
Did you think Jane Tanner's evidence was reliable? A pair of feet and another faceless man. At least the Smiths saw a girl who resembled Madeleine and was around her age.
-
Did you think Jane Tanner's evidence was reliable? A pair of feet and another faceless man. At least the Smiths saw a girl who resembled Madeleine and was around her age.
The 'significance', the bar to which Davey Gray would like evidence to aspire to, is actually very compelling. As compelling as an eye witness account gets save for a conversation with the man and a dead cert ID.
At about the right time, in the correct location, he saw a man who looked like Gerry McCann carrying a girl of the approximate age as wee Maddie. To compound this account, he's walking directly the opposite direction from the scene where a small child went missing.
Some here like box ticking - there's a lot of boxes ticked right there.
Moreover, if this de facto suspicious character resembled CB I'm sure the significance would be ratcheted up exponentially.
I say again. The only eye witness account that matters in this whole sorry saga.
Edit: I'll go further. If Martin Smith would have come forward sooner the McCann pair would have been charged.
-
Did you think Jane Tanner's evidence was reliable? A pair of feet and another faceless man. At least the Smiths saw a girl who resembled Madeleine and was around her age.
Its a fact that this sort of id evidence is unreliable.. Same goes for Smith.. Tanner and every sighting of Maddie 0
-
The 'significance', the bar to which Davey Gray would like evidence to aspire to, is actually very compelling. As compelling as an eye witness account gets save for a conversation with the man and a dead cert ID.
At about the right time, in the correct location, he saw a man who looked like Gerry McCann carrying a girl of the approximate age as wee Maddie. To compound this account, he's walking directly the opposite direction from the scene where a small child went missing.
Some here like box ticking - there's a lot of boxes ticked right there.
Moreover, if this de facto suspicious character resembled CB I'm sure the significance would be ratcheted up exponentially.
I say again. The only eye witness account that matters in this whole sorry saga.
Edit: I'll go further. If Martin Smith would have come forward sooner the McCann pair would have been charged.
Both Amaral and OG were interested in the Smith sighting, and afaik it was never resolved.
-
Its a fact that this sort of id evidence is unreliable.. Same goes for Smith.. Tanner and every sighting of Maddie 0
Include in that, Wolters id of CB, Madeleine's killer.
-
You're just trying to unpick our new theory. It won't work. It's watertight like a Tupperware container.
Expand on it then, jemmied shutters, using Mr Greys logic, its a fact they were damaged, broken.
-
The 'significance', the bar to which Davey Gray would like evidence to aspire to, is actually very compelling. As compelling as an eye witness account gets save for a conversation with the man and a dead cert ID.
At about the right time, in the correct location, he saw a man who looked like Gerry McCann carrying a girl of the approximate age as wee Maddie. To compound this account, he's walking directly the opposite direction from the scene where a small child went missing.
Some here like box ticking - there's a lot of boxes ticked right there.
Moreover, if this de facto suspicious character resembled CB I'm sure the significance would be ratcheted up exponentially.
I say again. The only eye witness account that matters in this whole sorry saga.
Edit: I'll go further. If Martin Smith would have come forward sooner the McCann pair would have been charged.
Obviously to no avail since none of them saw his face. Perhaps Brueckner ditched the dreadlocks for a different wig.
-
Obviously to no avail since none of them saw his face. Perhaps Brueckner ditched the dreadlocks for a different wig.
So how did Smith know the man wasn't wearing glasses if he didn't see his face?
-
So how did Smith know the man wasn't wearing glasses if he didn't see his face?
I think you could register features such as glass, beard/mustache, short/long hair. without being able to describe an actual face
-
I think you could register features such as glass, beard/mustache, short/long hair. without being able to describe an actual face
Do you think you could recognise a person by the way they held a sleeping child?
-
I think you could register features such as glass, beard/mustache, short/long hair. without being able to describe an actual face
Yes, you'd have to have seen the face to be able to register such things. So that's the claim that Smith never saw the man's face debunked anyway.
-
Do you think you could recognise a person by the way they held a sleeping child?
If I'd seen them carrying a sleeping child previously, quite possibly.
-
So how did Smith know the man wasn't wearing glasses if he didn't see his face?
It was Smith who wasn't wearing his glasses.
-
It was Smith who wasn't wearing his glasses.
Cite?
-
Also reported that CB didn't resemble the man seen carrying a child matching a description close to that of Madeleine.
I thought the public were ringing in saying he resembled CB?
-
I thought the public were ringing in saying he resembled CB?
When? Crimewatch? The public were plucking CB's name out of their arses years before he was arrested? A German national? Time travelling callers? Why didn't they just travel back to 3rd May at 9pm and watch?
-
Did the judges realise that the proven facts... Weren't proven
-
Did the judges realise that the proven facts... Weren't proven
Gerry argued that at the SC.
Like I keep saying, do you think he wouldn't have raised the matter somewhat keenly with his lawyer?
-
Did the judges realise that the proven facts... Weren't proven
I don't think they were asked. But then neither do I think that it matters.
-
Did the judges realise that the proven facts... Weren't proven
So right from the very start when the first court found in favour of the McCann's it was wrong .
-
So right from the very start when the first court found in favour of the McCann's it was wrong .
Do you need me to explain the first judgement
-
Did the judges realise that the proven facts... Weren't proven
Immaterial imo.
-
Immaterial imo.
The judges ruled that the comments by Amaral were supported by sufficient facts... They therefore need to know the facts and that cannot possibly be immaterial
-
The judges ruled that the comments by Amaral were supported by sufficient facts... They therefore need to know the facts and that cannot possibly be immaterial
I'm sure they checked, don't worry.
-
I'm sure they checked, don't worry.
Your faith and belief don't impress me
-
Your faith and belief don't impress me
I have no desire to impress you.
-
Members are reminded to keep posts relevant and above all, respectful to your fellow members. Please continue to report forum rules breaches in the usual way as reports are always dealt with by our magnificent team of moderators. No report is ever ignored.
Thank you everyone.
-
Don't know if there is an appeal or its a running down of a clock , I'd venture an appeal.
(https://i.imgur.com/VUsAY6x.png)
-
Don't know if there is an appeal or its a running down of a clock , I'd venture an appeal.
(https://i.imgur.com/VUsAY6x.png)
Good Find. It looks like an Appeal.
-
Good Find. It looks like an Appeal.
I think the judgement merits an appeal.
-
I think the judgement merits an appeal.
Interesting to know that you actually can appeal. Especially when some people thought it would never even be considered.
Another Fail for some.
-
Don't know if there is an appeal or its a running down of a clock , I'd venture an appeal.
(https://i.imgur.com/VUsAY6x.png)
Perhaps they read my posts on here... The fact is that the ruling that Amaral's claims has sufficient factual basis is wrong.
Duarte firm concentrated on the POI.. They needed to challenge the proven facts... Which are absolutely not proven
-
I doubt they will appeal because the ECHR may say its too late to re assess the facts on the case
-
I doubt they will appeal because the ECHR may say its too late to re assess the facts on the case
I don't think it matters anymore. It was all too long ago. The McCanns will never be indicted, but Madeleine is still in The News, while Germany which has no axe to grind are now seriously after Brueckner who needs to be kept off the streets of Europe.
I continue to vaguely hope for Madeleine.
-
Good Find. It looks like an Appeal.
Not so sure, it's reverted back to this today.
(https://i.imgur.com/0ZMSi9v.png)