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

[Vertigo Swirl]

My post from October 2018;

He used facts from the investigation. No-one knows if those facts are true or false. In order for the ECHR to decide they would have to investigate the case themselves and then use their own findings.

That isn't within their remit
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=7275.msg497499;topicseen#msg497499

Just one thing that’s puzzling me:  given that the definition of a fact is “ a thing that is known or proved to be true”, how can there be such a thing as a false fact?

[Wonderfulspam]

I have no idea. He still has connections within the PJ so who knows. What we must never forget is the Portuguese still have primacy in this case no matters what Wolter says.

Redwood did say the McCanns aren't suspects also.
Whether he was telling the truth or not we're unlikely to ever know.

[Vertigo Swirl]

I have no idea. He still has connections within the PJ so who knows. What we must never forget is the Portuguese still have primacy in this case no matters what Wolter says.

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?

[G-Unit]

I'm still coming to terms with the concept of facts that are untrue.   

It has been explained.

The decision concerning this issue faces, firstly, the problem of the dichotomy between "facts ascertained during the investigating process" and "facts that also are part of the investigating process". If “acts ascertained in the investigation" refers to those which, with rigour and according to the procedural-penal dogma, are the result of the investigation that was achieved, then only one deserves this qualification – the disappearance of Madeleine
https://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/v02.htm page 11

In other words the only fact in the files which is true is that Madeleine disappeared.

[barrier]

Redwood did say the McCanns aren't suspects also.
Whether he was telling the truth or not we're unlikely to ever know.

Yeah but, he said Tannerman was almost certainly not the abductor, funnily enough not seen any arguments saying he looked like CB.

[Wonderfulspam]

Yeah but, he said Tannerman was almost certainly not the abductor, funnily enough not seen any arguments saying he looked like CB.

We have drifted off topic I fear & for Madeleine’s sake we really should be focusing on the abduction & not wasting our time discussing civil litigation imo.

[Vertigo Swirl]

It has been explained.

The decision concerning this issue faces, firstly, the problem of the dichotomy between "facts ascertained during the investigating process" and "facts that also are part of the investigating process". If “acts ascertained in the investigation" refers to those which, with rigour and according to the procedural-penal dogma, are the result of the investigation that was achieved, then only one deserves this qualification – the disappearance of Madeleine
https://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/v02.htm page 11

In other words the only fact in the files which is true is that Madeleine disappeared.

My contention is that you can’t have facts which are untrue.  It’s impossible.  Something is either a fact or it isn’t.  And it’s absurd to say that the only “true fact” in the files is that Madeleine disappeared.  There are thousands of “true facts” in the files. 

[Wonderfulspam]

My contention is that you can’t have facts which are untrue.  It’s impossible.  Something is either a fact or it isn’t.  And it’s absurd to say that the only “true fact” in the files is that Madeleine disappeared.  There are thousands of “true facts” in the files.

I'd venture there are many things taken as fact that aren't true.

[The General]

My contention is that you can’t have facts which are untrue.  It’s impossible.  Something is either a fact or it isn’t.  And it’s absurd to say that the only “true fact” in the files is that Madeleine disappeared.  There are thousands of “true facts” in the files.

I know you're not reading this, but we've been down this road before: The 'facts' are the conclusions the PJ drew, based on the evidence gathered, which was voluminous. They, the PJ, acted on this basis. Hence, the 'fact' or 'facts' that the Supreme Court is referring to in this instance is the act, irrespective of the veracity of the evidence that lead to the act.

[Wonderfulspam]

I know you're not reading this, but we've been down this road before: The 'facts' are the conclusions the PJ drew, based on the evidence gathered, which was voluminous. They, the PJ, acted on this basis. Hence, the 'fact' or 'facts' that the Supreme Court is referring to in this instance is the act, irrespective of the veracity of the evidence that lead to the act.

Veracity or indeed admissibility in court.
From everything that transpired, the investigative team reached the conclusion they did.
If only they'd have just gone straight to Brueckner's house & smashed his door down all of this could have been avoided.

[Mr Gray]

I know you're not reading this, but we've been down this road before: The 'facts' are the conclusions the PJ drew, based on the evidence gathered, which was voluminous. They, the PJ, acted on this basis. Hence, the 'fact' or 'facts' that the Supreme Court is referring to in this instance is the act, irrespective of the veracity of the evidence that lead to the act.

If what you are saying is true then the proven facts do not meet the standard expected by the ECHR as facts.

Proven facts in this instance are not facts

[Vertigo Swirl]

The dogs barked in the apartment = fact
the dogs alerted to a dead body = a contention, an intepretation, = NOT a fact.

[G-Unit]

Bless your little British hearts. You're trying to understand legal concepts from another country with a different language. Perhaps you never will. Maybe you should stop trying and accept that seven ECHR judges from different countries did understand.

[Wonderfulspam]

The dogs barked in the apartment = fact
the dogs alerted to a dead body = a contention, an intepretation, = NOT a fact.

GMC  Can I make a statement?
Judge - The statements in the Portuguese court system, unlike in England where people can give extemporaneous statements [see VPS], are the declarations, which consist of a series of questions put by the lawyers and Judge and by the answers of the deponent, which you just gave. You can say something but it won't have any legal validity, nevertheless it will still be recorded.

GMC - I want to speak about the sniffer dogs. They never alerted to any blood in the car and they never alerted to cadaver odour...

Judge [interrupts] – We are not here to ascertain that, our perspective here in this court is to analyse your claim.
GMC – But the book mentions facts that aren't true.

Judge – To decide that there are already forensic experts. We are not here to prove if the contents of the book are truthful or not. Here we are only trying to establish if the freedom of expression of the defendants has affected the rights of the claimants. This court cannot be a substitute of the criminal investigation.

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=4746.0

[Mr Gray]

Bless your little British hearts. You're trying to understand legal concepts from another country with a different language. Perhaps you never will. Maybe you should stop trying and accept that seven ECHR judges from different countries did understand.

Some of us are quite capable of understanding these things.

The judges can only rule on the evidence presented...the McCann  may well have been let down by their legal team....who  it appears have no proven expertise in human rights.
Whichever way to try to spin it the case was decided on so called facts which were lies