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

[jassi]

How is any of this arguing going to help find Maddie?

Since when has that concerned supporters? The welfare of McCann senior is their primary concern

[Wonderfulspam]

Once again if it doesn’t interest then why are you bothering to log on and read?  Has the paint already dried round your gaff?

I fixed & painted the front gate the other day, so that was nice. Got to paint the textured wall tomorrow, with brief rest stops for tea & online wummery.

[Eleanor]

In what way is it getting interesting?

Way above your head I'm afraid.

[jassi]

Way above your head I'm afraid.

Which really means you haven't got a sensible  answer. 

[Angelo222]

I fixed & painted the front gate the other day, so that was nice. Got to paint the textured wall tomorrow, with brief rest stops for tea & online wummery.

I'm watching. 

[Eleanor]

Which really means you haven't got a sensible  answer.

I don't need one.

[Icanhandlethetruth]

At least you've tried... So are amarals claims based on sufficient  factual basis.. What do you think is the factual basis for his claims.

There is not sufficient factual basis to prove Maddie died in the apartment... It was the PJ based on their misunderstanding of the evidence.

So what's the difference in my saying CB is guilty...

There was sufficient factual basis for all 7 judges to rule unanimously that Amaral was entitled to express his opinion (value judgement) on the case that he was co-coordinating.
You don’t understand the context that the ruling was made. The judges ruled that it was Amaral's opinions and beliefs. In the book he says
The conclusions my team and I have arrived at are the following
1. The minor, Madeleine McCann died inside apartment 5A of the Ocean Club in Vila da Luz, on the night of May 3rd 2007;
The ECHR didn’t rule that it was a fact that Maddie dies in the apt only it was Amaral and his teams conclusion that she did. It was factual that it was their conclusion.

The difference, I would venture is you have “insufficient factual basis” to claim that CB is guilty as you are not involved in the investigation and have no idea what the evidence is.

[Vertigo Swirl]

Since when has that concerned supporters? The welfare of McCann senior is their primary concern

And your primary concern is to put the boot in, it’s certainly never been Madeleine that’s for sure.

[Icanhandlethetruth]

I've read the full judgement.. I can't put all the details in every post I write but its good you actually are prepared to discuss it when no one else could..

If you had read the full judgement and read it without any dogmatic opinions going in to it, I don’t see how you could not agree with the unanimous decision of the 7 judges.  They lay out the five points clearly and concisely that lead to their verdict.
(a) Contribution to a debate of general interest
(b) The applicants’ previous conduct and the extent to which they were well known
(c) The subject matter of the book, documentary and interview, and how the information was obtained
(d) The content of the contested statements and their impact
(e) The particular circumstances of the case

[Wonderfulspam]

There was sufficient factual basis for all 7 judges to rule unanimously that Amaral was entitled to express his opinion (value judgement) on the case that he was co-coordinating.
You don’t understand the context that the ruling was made. The judges ruled that it was Amaral's opinions and beliefs. In the book he says
The conclusions my team and I have arrived at are the following
1. The minor, Madeleine McCann died inside apartment 5A of the Ocean Club in Vila da Luz, on the night of May 3rd 2007;
The ECHR didn’t rule that it was a fact that Maddie dies in the apt only it was Amaral and his teams conclusion that she did. It was factual that it was their conclusion.

The difference, I would venture is you have “insufficient factual basis” to claim that CB is guilty as you are not involved in the investigation and have no idea what the evidence is.

Wolters, in his forthcoming book, could rightfully claim that Brueckner's confession to his mates, & online confession that he murdered Maddie & destroyed the evidence, convinced him that CB was guilty. He wouldn't need to prove that he actually was.

[Wonderfulspam]

And your primary concern is to put the boot in, it’s certainly never been Madeleine that’s for sure.

And what have you been doing recently to help find Maddie?

[Icanhandlethetruth]

Wolters, in his forthcoming book, could rightfully claim that Brueckner's confession to his mates, & online confession that he murdered Maddie & destroyed the evidence, convinced him that CB was guilty. He wouldn't need to prove that he actually was.

I have no problem with Wolters writing a book once he has retired and the investigation is closed ( the same criteria that applied to GA). I am not sure I would read it though.

[Wonderfulspam]

I'm watching. 

The gate was interesting.
There was a rotten patch that I treated with Rustins wood hardener, before applying a brace around the patch & layering wood filler in.
I then made sure to put hardener around the base of the gate to prevent any further rot from taking hold, then applied 3 separate coats of Dulux 10 year weathershield.
It looks great & will be fit to withstand the elements for years to come.

[Wonderfulspam]

I have no problem with Wolters writing a book once he has retired and the investigation is closed ( the same criteria that applied to GA). I am not sure I would read it though.

There wouldn't be much to read, to be fair, he's already shown his full deck.

[Vertigo Swirl]

I have no problem with Wolters writing a book once he has retired and the investigation is closed ( the same criteria that applied to GA). I am not sure I would read it though.

Did you read Amaral’s book?