Madeleine McCann's parents lose libel case with the European Court of Human Rights

[Vertigo Swirl]

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).

[barrier]

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.

[Wonderfulspam]

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?

[jassi]

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.

[Wonderfulspam]

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.

[Vertigo Swirl]

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... 

[Wonderfulspam]

Yeah, I keep having nightmares about it, how will I ever sleep again?  I really don't know... 

Sedative Drugs?

[faithlilly]

‘ 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!

[Vertigo Swirl]

‘ 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! 

[jassi]

‘ 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.

[faithlilly]

Hello Gloaty McGloatface! 

He’s a rude little man who has had his pomposity pricked….what’s not to love?

[Wonderfulspam]

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.

[Vertigo Swirl]

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? 

[The General]

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.

[jassi]

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.