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

[Mr Gray]

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

[Wonderfulspam]

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.

[Icanhandlethetruth]

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?

[faithlilly]

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.

[Brietta]

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.

[Mr Gray]

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

[faithlilly]

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?

[Icanhandlethetruth]

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.

[Brietta]

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.

[Mr Gray]

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.

[Vertigo Swirl]

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? 

[Mr Gray]

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

[Icanhandlethetruth]

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?

[Icanhandlethetruth]

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.

[Mr Gray]

No thanks. I have read the full judgment.

Perhaps you didn't read it carefully enough..... That's where I got my information from