More recent events related to Madeleine McCann's case

[Brietta]

The double standards being employed are quite breath taking.

At one time I would have thought them incredible.  Now - absolutely nothing surprises me as I watch it all with something approaching a morbid curiosity.

[Eleanor]

At one time I would have thought them incredible.  Now - absolutely nothing surprises me as I watch it all with something approaching a morbid curiosity.

But it is all so way off beam with absolutely no evidence against The McCanns, so how can people be this stupid?

[Vertigo Swirl]

I don't know, but as he wasn't a public official he wasn't constrained by the above as Wolters is. The first judge argued that Amaral was constrained, but the higher courts disagreed.

So when Wolters resigns you believe he will be free to write that it's a fact that CB murdered Madeleine in a best-selling book, even if CB is not charged at the time of publication?

[Eleanor]

So when Wolters resigns you believe he will be free to write that it's a fact that CB murdered Madeleine in a best-selling book, even if CB is not charged at the time of publication?

Obligatory I would say.

[G-Unit]

But it is all so way off beam with absolutely no evidence against The McCanns, so how can people be this stupid?

The only incontrovertible fact in this case is that Madeleine McCann disappeared.

[Mr Gray]

The only incontrovertible fact in this case is that Madeleine McCann disappeared.

There are a lot more incontrovertible facts than that

[Vertigo Swirl]

Obligatory I would say.

And I'm sure when Bruckner sues him, all the McCann sceptics will be defending Wolters' right to free speech over Bruckner's right to presumption of innocence....oh wait. 

[G-Unit]

There are a lot more incontrovertible facts than that

I'm quoting the judge of the first instance. Are you quoting anyone or just offering your own opinion?

"Art 27 and 28. 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 McCann."
page 10 https://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/v02.htm

Notice the different type of facts she highlights, and her emphasis that only the disappearance has been ascertained (confirmed as true).

[Brietta]

But it is all so way off beam with absolutely no evidence against The McCanns, so how can people be this stupid?

It is just another conspiracy theory amongst so many other conspiracy theories.  Didn't you know the world is flat?

Ignorance - malevolence - and the inexplicable urge to 'organise' seems to power this one.  It is their 'arguments' that are stupid.  What it is that drives them to do what they do is beyond my comprehension.

None more so than when the rights of the parents of a missing child are weighed against the rights of a prolific criminal - burglar - rapist - paedophile, the rights of the latter reign supreme.

Just check out the number of 'hate' sites set up to direct and promulgate 'the message' and wonder.

[Brietta]

I'm quoting the judge of the first instance. Are you quoting anyone or just offering your own opinion?

"Art 27 and 28. 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 McCann."
page 10 https://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/v02.htm

Notice the different type of facts she highlights, and her emphasis that only the disappearance has been ascertained (confirmed as true).

I think you might be posting on the wrong thread.  I was rather hoping that a thread dealing with current issues might be of more interest than revisiting the wrongs which initiated the necessity of judges of whatever number of instances particularly the last lot in the direction of the ECHR.

I fully appreciate why you may wish to deflect from what must be one of the biggest issues affecting Madeleine's case but I think it is time we moved on from just being another hate site reflecting mean spirited attitudes and deal with the actualities.

A burglar and a paedophile was according to Amaral brought to the attention of the Judicial Police in 2007.

I am rather more interested in why there wasn't more interest in following that line of investigation than the one Amaral chose to follow.

Amaral's 'case' petered out in September 2007.  The case against the Luz paedophile is in vigorous process against the worldwide background of what appears to be a war against paedophiles and traffickers.

I think it is maybe time for you to move on and note what is happening in the here and now.

[Mr Gray]

I'm quoting the judge of the first instance. Are you quoting anyone or just offering your own opinion?

"Art 27 and 28. 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 McCann."
page 10 https://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/v02.htm

Notice the different type of facts she highlights, and her emphasis that only the disappearance has been ascertained (confirmed as true).

The McCanns have never been arrested
SY have said they are not suspects
The Germans havve said they are not suspects
Pedro da Carmo said not duspects
Wolters has said he has concrete evidence CB murdered MM

All those are facts

[Vertigo Swirl]

I'm quoting the judge of the first instance. Are you quoting anyone or just offering your own opinion?

"Art 27 and 28. 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 McCann."
page 10 https://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/v02.htm

Notice the different type of facts she highlights, and her emphasis that only the disappearance has been ascertained (confirmed as true).

Seems to me you're cherry picking which bits of what she said you agree with to suit your argument.

[Mr Gray]

Seems to me you're cherry picking which bits of what she said you agree with to suit your argument.

Just as Amaral cherry picked the files to produce an unbalanved view... That could well be mentioned by the ECHR

[G-Unit]

The McCanns have never been arrested
SY have said they are not suspects
The Germans havve said they are not suspects
Pedro da Carmo said not duspects
Wolters has said he has concrete evidence CB murdered MM

All those are facts

According to the ECHR, however, the McCanns were charged with a criminal offence;

"The Court held that a person arrested on suspicion of having committed a criminal offence
(Heaney and McGuinness v. Ireland, § 42; Brusco v. France, §§ 47-50), a suspect questioned about his
involvement in acts constituting a criminal offence (Aleksandr Zaichenko v. Russia, §§ 41-43; Yankov
and Others v. Bulgaria, § 23; Schmid-Laffer v. Switzerland, §§ 30-31) and a person who has been
questioned in respect of his or her suspected involvement in an offence (Stirmanov v. Russia, § 39),
irrespective of the fact that he or she was formally treated as a witness (Kalēja v. Latvia, §§ 36-41) as
well as a person who has been formally charged with a criminal offence under procedure set out in
domestic law (Pélissier and Sassi v. France [GC], § 66; Pedersen and Baadsgaard v. Denmark [GC],
§ 44) could all be regarded as being “charged with a criminal offence” and claim the protection of
Article 6 of the Convention.
https://www.echr.coe.int/documents/guide_art_6_criminal_eng.pdf

Charged but not tried.

[Mr Gray]

According to the ECHR, however, the McCanns were charged with a criminal offence;

"The Court held that a person arrested on suspicion of having committed a criminal offence
(Heaney and McGuinness v. Ireland, § 42; Brusco v. France, §§ 47-50), a suspect questioned about his
involvement in acts constituting a criminal offence (Aleksandr Zaichenko v. Russia, §§ 41-43; Yankov
and Others v. Bulgaria, § 23; Schmid-Laffer v. Switzerland, §§ 30-31) and a person who has been
questioned in respect of his or her suspected involvement in an offence (Stirmanov v. Russia, § 39),
irrespective of the fact that he or she was formally treated as a witness (Kalēja v. Latvia, §§ 36-41) as
well as a person who has been formally charged with a criminal offence under procedure set out in
domestic law (Pélissier and Sassi v. France [GC], § 66; Pedersen and Baadsgaard v. Denmark [GC],
§ 44) could all be regarded as being “charged with a criminal offence” and claim the protection of
Article 6 of the Convention.
https://www.echr.coe.int/documents/guide_art_6_criminal_eng.pdf

Charged but not tried.

Your posts are getting more and more ridiculous