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

[Icanhandlethetruth]

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?

[Mr Gray]

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

[Vertigo Swirl]

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. 

[Icanhandlethetruth]

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.

[Mr Gray]

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

[Mr Gray]

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

[Icanhandlethetruth]

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.

[Icanhandlethetruth]

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.

[Mr Gray]

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

[Mr Gray]

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

[Icanhandlethetruth]

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.

[Mr Gray]

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

[Vertigo Swirl]

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.

[Icanhandlethetruth]

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.

[Icanhandlethetruth]

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