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

[Vertigo Swirl]

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. 

[The General]

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.

[Angelo222]

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.

[Mr Gray]

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

[Vertigo Swirl]

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. 

[Vertigo Swirl]

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.

[Mr Gray]

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

[The General]

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).

[The General]

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.

[Wonderfulspam]

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.

[Wonderfulspam]

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?

[jassi]

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.

[Vertigo Swirl]

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?

[barrier]

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.

[Mr Gray]

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