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

[jassi]

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

Then more fool McCann for employing them.
He seems to have a record for employing failures

[kizzy]

I was rather referring to why did the case ever go before the ECHR in the first place, given that it was apparently obvious to all sceptics right from the start that the McCanns didn't have a leg to stand on.

Well, I'm glad it did reach the ECHR....or else the mccs could have played the victims again if it hadn't.

Maybe they were hoping it didn't.

[Mr Gray]

Then more fool McCann for employing them.
He seems to have a record for employing failures

ive already said that

[Icanhandlethetruth]

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.

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

I say again if you had read the judgement and had understood it you would see why the seven judges gave their verdict. It has nothing to do with inept lawyers. It is clear as anything with the five points raised in support of the verdict. You just can’t grasp it as you have fixed your mind in a certain direction. 

[Eleanor]

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.

His Theory?  That's a laugh.

[Wonderfulspam]

Look, this is getting us nowhere. We should be focusing our combined efforts on finding Madeleine.
When I think of the years we've all spent arguing with each other over pointless minutiae of the case, rather than being out there actively looking for the abducted child I find it rather sad. We are letting Madeleine down with every wasteful stroke of our keyboards.

[Brietta]

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?

I don't think they should have to (although it really wouldn't have taken up much of their time).  The process and procedures should be enough and obviously there was sufficient of that to allow the case to proceed to a hearing.

[Mr Gray]

I say again if you had read the judgement and had understood it you would see why the seven judges gave their verdict. It has nothing to do with inept lawyers. It is clear as anything with the five points raised in support of the verdict. You just can’t grasp it as you have fixed your mind in a certain direction.

total twaddle...could you point out a flaw in my argument rather than ,.....you dont understand...you remind me of my daughter when she was 12

[Mr Gray]

I say again if you had read the judgement and had understood it you would see why the seven judges gave their verdict. It has nothing to do with inept lawyers. It is clear as anything with the five points raised in support of the verdict. You just can’t grasp it as you have fixed your mind in a certain direction.

answer a simple question...do the alerts confirm the presence of cadaver odour...harrison and grime say no

[Wonderfulspam]

answer a simple question...do the alerts confirm the presence of cadaver odour...harrison and grime say no

Well there's still no sign of a living Madeleine, she was looking a bit flaccid when the Smith family saw her, so I would say yes really.

[Brietta]

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.

Which theory was that?

The one where a decomposing body was sloshing around in the back of the hire car. 

Or the one where the repose of the elderly British lady was disturbed by invading her coffin and adding a further body prior to her alleged cremation?

[Eleanor]

What will Amaral do next is more my bag at the moment.

[G-Unit]

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

Anything in the PJ files which GA used to build his theory.

[Icanhandlethetruth]

total twaddle...could you point out a flaw in my argument rather than ,.....you dont understand...you remind me of my daughter when she was 12

Your argument seems to be the lawyers are incompetent because they lost.
You know nothing about them. You have just had a look at their website and decided this because it means you were not wrong if they were inept.
Maybe they have had success at the ECHR previously or maybe its their first case but they hired the best outside legal expertise to help in preparing the written submission.
You have made the assertion that they were incompetent so you should prove the evidence to back up your claims. I am not claiming they were or were not incompetent.

Whats wrong with being compared to your daughter when she was 12 by the way, surely you thought she was brilliant, no?

[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 are trying to show what the portuguese regard as facts...its the ECHR opinion thats important