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

[Mr Gray]

This is the crux of it.
You were so confident the McCaans would win. From your post a couple of days before the announcement there is no doubt in your mind, you knew European law not just better than anyone on this forum but any forum. I will spare your blushes and not reproduce the whole embarrassing post.

But the only way out for you to not admit you were wrong and your whole ego would collapse like a pack of cards is to find someone else to blame for your confident prediction being totally wrong (7-0).
In steps the inept lawyers into your mind, “of course its not me who is wrong, the McCaans chose lawyers who know nothing about human rights law” you think.
You can supply no reason that the McCaans didn’t notice that they were inept in the 5 years that they used them but you picked up on their ineptness after a quick glance at their website three days ago.

You really are the gift that keeps giving.

Icanhandlethetruth link=topic=12414.msg691718#msg691718 date=1663927960]
This is the crux of it.
You were so confident the McCaans would win. From your post a couple of days before the announcement there is no doubt in your mind, you knew European law not just better than anyone on this forum but any forum. I will spare your blushes and not reproduce the whole embarrassing post.

But the only way out for you to not admit you were wrong and your whole ego would collapse like a pack of cards is to find someone else to blame for your confident prediction being totally wrong (7-0).
In steps the inept lawyers into your mind, “of course its not me who is wrong, the McCaans chose lawyers who know nothing about human rights law” you think.
You can supply no reason that the McCaans didn’t notice that they were inept in the 5 years that they used them but you picked up on their ineptness after a quick glance at their website three days ago.

You really are the gift that keeps giving.
[/quote]
I expected the mccanns to hire competent lawyers... Im astonished they didn't.. Lawyers with a proven track record at the ECHR... That seems a very sensible to me unlike you who think an expert lawyer would have made no difference.. A really stupid comment imo

[jassi]

I think the fact that the action was listened to in the appeal court rather suggests that it was competent.

Had it not been so it would never have reached that stage and would have fallen at the first hurdle.  Therefore the action was competent and the lawyers were competent in bringing it.
The unanimous verdict of the seven judges gives the lie to that and there is no clarity given as to why that should be.

I think somewhere in all of this is a lesson in the swings and roundabouts of court actions. Particularly in the long drawn out period over which this one has taken place.

I remain at a loss why Amaral has been allowed to make his libellous statements for over fifteen years and will continue to do so as we have seen and all sanctioned by the European Court of Human Rights.  If the McCanns do not have the legal right to protection from Amaral's accusations - and that is so - I think a long hard look needs to be taken to procedures.

The laws of each and every country are solely the business of that country and it is not for foreign nationals to say how they should be amended.

[Mr Gray]

A further explanation of what facts are in this context;

All that is part of the investigation, beyond this fact, are clues, means of evidence*, means of obtaining evidence** and theses or hypotheses that are proper to an investigation shelved for lack of evidence. It will therefore be understood that, when are put together the “facts ascertained in the investigation” and the “facts that are part of the investigation”, it is referred to means of obtaining evidence, means of evidence and clues that constitute the proper investigation and are documented in the inquiry.
page 11 https://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/v02.htm

You need to supply a cite for what the ECHR regard as facts

[Eleanor]

My point is that the McCanns lawyers obviously believed that there was a reasonable chance that they would win an appeal based presumably on similar reasoning to those on here who believed they would win.  Personally I never claimed to know enough about ECHR law to call it, but if I had, I guess I would have stood a 50/50 chance of being right so I don't think there's much to brag about either way.

I was 50/50 on this.  Bearing in mind that The ECHR don't appear to be obliged to read the book that started all this.  But should they have to?

[Mr Gray]

Did you expect the 'inept' lawyers to consider the court may 'accept BS as fact', given that the whole case was built around them? Because you never said.

I've been saying for several years that the McCanns would win because his opinions were not based on facts... And they are not

[Wonderfulspam]

I've been saying for several years that the McCanns would win because his opinions were not based on facts... And they are not

You've been saying for 2 years that Wolters has solved the case when he obviously hasn't. Was that a fact based opinion?

[G-Unit]

I didn't expect the court to accept BS as fact..sceptics actually think the BS is fact... That's the difference

No, that's what you think the difference is. The fact is that the PJ thought the dogs alerted to cadaver odour and blood. Maybe they did, maybe they didn't. Either way it was written down in the PJ files and became part of the evidence. GA was therefore able to use it to support his theory.

[jassi]

I've been saying for several years that the McCanns would win because his opinions were not based on facts... And they are not

It must be  so disappointing for your opinion to be ignored by seven eminent judges.

[Mr Gray]

No, that's what you think the difference is. The fact is that the PJ thought the dogs alerted to cadaver odour and blood. Maybe they did, maybe they didn't. Either way it was written down in the PJ files and became part of the evidence. GA was therefore able to use it to support his theory.

Thats where you are wrong and the PJ are wrong....the PJ stated as a fact that the dogs alerted to cadaver odour...that is total BS and you would have to agree

[misty]

I'm late to the wake, having taken time out to buy a new dummy and put my toys back in the pram.
Sometimes the law is an ass. I think this is one of those occasions, whereby the judgement sends a chilling message to families of any child who happens to go missing or be abducted. Should such families choose to engage with the media proactively in attempts to locate their child they run the risk of being deemed public figures and subsequently receive little protection against an accusations levelled at them, regardless of innocence or guilt.
Whilst the ruling may be legally correct based on the ECHR's interpretation of the Portuguese SC's ruling, and only the SC ruling not the case as a whole, imo it is both unethical and unjust. However, it has no bearing on the ongoing investigations into Madeleine's abduction and murder, despite Amaral's gleeful pronouncement to the contrary. Madeleine's murderer hasn't yet been charged.
The ECHR can be at odds with itself on occasions, with profound effects on the culture of an entire nation.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10456956
The appeal by Italy was successful.
https://www.theguardian.com/law/2011/mar/18/european-court-human-rights-crucifixes-allowed

[Mr Gray]

It must be  so disappointing for your opinion to be ignored by seven eminent judges.

You dont seem to be able to follow my what im saying..prob due to your poor understanding. the judges will only consider the points raised in the appication...mccanns inept lawyer didnt raise it

[Wonderfulspam]

You dont seem to be able to follow my what im saying..prob due to your poor understanding. the judges will only consider the points raised in the appication...mccanns inept lawyer didnt raise it

You don't think Gerry would have badgered them about it, considering he was rather flustered about it at the SC?

[Mr Gray]

I'm late to the wake, having taken time out to buy a new dummy and put my toys back in the pram.
Sometimes the law is an ass. I think this is one of those occasions, whereby the judgement sends a chilling message to families of any child who happens to go missing or be abducted. Should such families choose to engage with the media proactively in attempts to locate their child they run the risk of being deemed public figures and subsequently receive little protection against an accusations levelled at them, regardless of innocence or guilt.
Whilst the ruling may be legally correct based on the ECHR's interpretation of the Portuguese SC's ruling, and only the SC ruling not the case as a whole, imo it is both unethical and unjust. However, it has no bearing on the ongoing investigations into Madeleine's abduction and murder, despite Amaral's gleeful pronouncement to the contrary. Madeleine's murderer hasn't yet been charged.
The ECHR can be at odds with itself on occasions, with profound effects on the culture of an entire nation.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10456956
The appeal by Italy was successful.
https://www.theguardian.com/law/2011/mar/18/european-court-human-rights-crucifixes-allowed

are you suggesting 7 judges got it wrong...how very dare you

[Wonderfulspam]

I'm late to the wake, having taken time out to buy a new dummy and put my toys back in the pram.
Sometimes the law is an ass. I think this is one of those occasions, whereby the judgement sends a chilling message to families of any child who happens to go missing or be abducted. Should such families choose to engage with the media proactively in attempts to locate their child they run the risk of being deemed public figures and subsequently receive little protection against an accusations levelled at them, regardless of innocence or guilt.
Whilst the ruling may be legally correct based on the ECHR's interpretation of the Portuguese SC's ruling, and only the SC ruling not the case as a whole, imo it is both unethical and unjust. However, it has no bearing on the ongoing investigations into Madeleine's abduction and murder, despite Amaral's gleeful pronouncement to the contrary. Madeleine's murderer hasn't yet been charged.
The ECHR can be at odds with itself on occasions, with profound effects on the culture of an entire nation.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10456956
The appeal by Italy was successful.
https://www.theguardian.com/law/2011/mar/18/european-court-human-rights-crucifixes-allowed

He's not going to be because he didn't murder her.

[Brietta]

The laws of each and every country are solely the business of that country and it is not for foreign nationals to say how they should be amended.

Where did I say that national laws were for foreigners to amend?  Please do not misinterpret my posts!