Re: McCanns and the ECHR

by Doug D 16.04.19 19:26

Bringing this over from Textusa:

Mark Saunokonoko‏Verified account @saunokonoko
Replying to @The_Truth_II
Still in the ECHR queue as of 16 April, 2019. #McCann
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/D4Pc_hIUcAAsfnz.jpg
7:38 PM - 15 Apr 2019

I don't think we have ever known the application number, which is redacted above, but Mark has managed to get access to this one way or another, so should get to know as soon as anything happens.

by willowthewisp 16.04.19 19:40

Hi DougD,that takes care of funding of Operation Grange until September 2019 then, Two years in July since submitted to ECHR, April 2019 re-newel?

by **Jill Havern** 28.06.19 11:36

https://twitter.com/saunokonoko/status/1117980448787812352/photo/1?fbclid=IwAR2d0ZAztsa68yFpAAEBKd80HSlHDMkPClyEN4RlKqbhnWHZAuCghqfKuio

by Verdi 29.06.19 0:21

I'd love to know the provenance of this application - like how Mark Saunokonoko got his hands on the case reference number, which has been obscured on his tweet.

Ages ago when I tried to trace the alleged application on the ECHR website, the application reference number was required without which the application couldn't be traced.

I'm guessing this is the initial stage, i.e. lodging an application for a case to be heard because frankly, I'm surprised it's even listed as a pending case. Surely there's an office bound minion in situ who sifts through all applications received and decides which adheres to the requisite criteria and which should be rejected.

What possible grounds could the McCann's have for a case against Portugal? It's laughable.

They couldn't even manage to prove, or even justify, their prolonged case against Gonçalo Amaral - what chance do they have against a European state?

by lion77 29.06.19 7:49

Verdi wrote:I'd love to know the provenance of this application - like how Mark Saunokonoko got his hands on the case reference number, which has been obscured on his tweet.

Ages ago when I tried to trace the alleged application on the ECHR website, the application reference number was required without which the application couldn't be traced.

I'm guessing this is the initial stage, i.e. lodging an application for a case to be heard because frankly, I'm surprised it's even listed as a pending case. Surely there's an office bound minion in situ who sifts through all applications received and decides which adheres to the requisite criteria and which should be rejected.

What possible grounds could the McCann's have for a case against Portugal? It's laughable.

They couldn't even manage to prove, or even justify, their prolonged case against Gonçalo Amaral - what chance do they have against a European state?

hi Verdi,
ive researched the facts behind the case and from what I can see the mccanns have a very strong case. Its basically a balance between item 10 and 8. Thats the right to free speech against the right to reputation. Posters might not like it but looking at previous cases the mccanns will be sussessful. We then have the right to the presumption of innocence which the SC stated does not apply in a civil court. From past rulings by the ECHR it does.

by Verdi 01.07.19 1:57

lion77 wrote:hi Verdi,
ive researched the facts behind the case and from what I can see the mccanns have a very strong case. Its basically a balance between item 10 and 8. Thats the right to free speech against the right to reputation. Posters might not like it but looking at previous cases the mccanns will be sussessful. We then have the right to the presumption of innocence which the SC stated does not apply in a civil court. From past rulings by the ECHR it does.

I don't believe it's a case of posters not liking it, it's more a balance of probabilities.

If, and that's a very big if and the reason I question the provenance of the McCann application being in the system as tweeted by Mark Saunokonoko), McCann and Healy must have a very strong case against Portugal, the state.

The listing denotes McCann and Healy v. Portugal, not M. Amaral, the Portuguese police or any other isolated individual. That simple fact immediately overturns your point about the right to free speech against the right to reputation.

You say you have been researching the McCanns case which has led you to believe the strength of their chances. Do you have inside knowledge to enable you to assess the McCanns position, like detail of their briefs strategy?

As regards the presumption of innocence, I'm not sure how this fits in with the alleged McCann and Healy v. Portugal application.

You could of course be right but we'll just have to wait and see - a very long wait it would appear.

Meanwhile I continue to believe it to be an elaborate hoax - just like every other aspect of this protracted saga.

by Doug D 01.07.19 10:50

Verdi:

‘Meanwhile I continue to believe it to be an elaborate hoax - just like every other aspect of this protracted saga.’

Now that I believe to be very wishful thinking.

I see no reason to disbelieve Mark Saunokonoko’s posting of the ‘pending judicial decision’ screenshot and if he has indeed got the case number himself, would be most grateful if he could update this screenshot on a fairly regular basis, as the ‘first judicial decision’ should be due anytime now.

This is entirely in accord with the way the ECHR works.

Whilst they no doubt have clerical staff who can sort some incomplete and incorrect chaff from the wheat, any properly submitted application has to go much further than that, which I believe to be the case here.

I posted in #21 the sort of timelines presently expected in the ECHR, and unless we get a rejection under the ‘manifestly ill-founded’ criteria, which should come sometime this year, within a roughly two year timescale, we are likely to be waiting until 2022 for judgement.

If it does get past this years first judicial decision, how many more ‘last throws of the dice’ are Grange going to have to come up with to warrant ticking over that long, as I firmly believe they intend to see out the final judgement and GA’s possible second book, before deciding how on earth they can put it all to bed, but that may just be wishful (or logical) thinking on my part.

by Verdi 01.07.19 12:22

I'm not doubting Mark Saunokonko's integrity, I'm questioning the provenance of the screenshot he tweeted.

Making an application for a hearing by the ECHR for whatever reason and knowing full well it's unlikely it will ever be heard is, in my view, an elaborate hoax.

That aside, I can't see your reasoning as regards the future of Operation Grange. Any grievance the McCanns may have with Snr Amaral or indeed the Portuguese state, has no bearing on the disappearance of their daughter Madeleine and the quasi-legal investigation conducted by the UK's Metropolitan Police in the guise of Operation Grange.

by Doug D 01.07.19 18:15

Purely my opinion, but OG have now dug themselves in so deep, they don’t know which way to turn.

Keeping on trucking (or pretending to truck) rolls the problem on to (hopefully from their point of view) someone else’s watch and in the absence of a proper investigation, working with and on behalf of the PJ, which I think most of us here believe to be the case, prevents the embarrassment that pulling out now with some nonsensical ending is likely to lead to.

Until such time that the ECHR case gets rejected (if indeed it does), there is the possibility that Portugal (i.e. the Portuguese State) will be called to defend the case and who knows what worms that might reveal.

Any closing statement from OG at this stage is just too risky a strategy, as if a tissue of lies were later revealed by Portugal (or GA, who I think is also awaiting the ECHR ruling before his next move) the whole of the Met’s credibility and even wider, UK Policing, could be called into question.

From a face saving point of view, keeping OG going to the end of the line has to make sense, as at least then they know which way to try to spin the closing fairytale.

by ferrotty 01.07.19 20:24

Doug D wrote:Purely my opinion, but OG have now dug themselves in so deep, they don’t know which way to turn.

Keeping on trucking (or pretending to truck) rolls the problem on to (hopefully from their point of view) someone else’s watch and in the absence of a proper investigation, working with and on behalf of the PJ, which I think most of us here believe to be the case, prevents the embarrassment that pulling out now with some nonsensical ending is likely to lead to.

Until such time that the ECHR case gets rejected (if indeed it does), there is the possibility that Portugal (i.e. the Portuguese State) will be called to defend the case and who knows what worms that might reveal.

Any closing statement from OG at this stage is just too risky a strategy, as if a tissue of lies were later revealed by Portugal (or GA, who I think is also awaiting the ECHR ruling before his next move) the whole of the Met’s credibility and even wider, UK Policing, could be called into question.

From a face saving point of view, keeping OG going to the end of the line has to make sense, as at least then they know which way to try to spin the closing fairytale.

That snowball rolling down the hill just gets bigger and bigger after each payment to OG.

by Verdi 02.07.19 1:01

DougD wrote:Purely my opinion, but OG have now dug themselves in so deep, they don’t know which way to turn.

It's not a matter for Operation Grange to decide though is it, it's the puppeteer who pulls the strings - surely?

In my view, Operation Grange (I use the title tentatively) could bale out right now, as they could so easily have done at any stage of the review/re-investigation. All they need say is that all avenues have been thoroughly investigated but there is insufficient evidence to lead to a prosecution - case closed pending further evidence.

They are not obliged to release details of the inquiry/re-investigation, nor are they obligated to justify the inordinate sum of money expended to date.

The question is .... why haven't they done just that?

Intriguing to say the least.

by lion77 02.07.19 19:17

Verdi wrote:
lion77 wrote:hi Verdi,
ive researched the facts behind the case and from what I can see the mccanns have a very strong case. Its basically a balance between item 10 and 8. Thats the right to free speech against the right to reputation. Posters might not like it but looking at previous cases the mccanns will be sussessful. We then have the right to the presumption of innocence which the SC stated does not apply in a civil court. From past rulings by the ECHR it does.

I don't believe it's a case of posters not liking it, it's more a balance of probabilities.

If, and that's a very big if and the reason I question the provenance of the McCann application being in the system as tweeted by Mark Saunokonoko), McCann and Healy must have a very strong case against Portugal, the state.

The listing denotes McCann and Healy v. Portugal, not M. Amaral, the Portuguese police or any other isolated individual. That simple fact immediately overturns your point about the right to free speech against the right to reputation.

You say you have been researching the McCanns case which has led you to believe the strength of their chances. Do you have inside knowledge to enable you to assess the McCanns position, like detail of their briefs strategy?

As regards the presumption of innocence, I'm not sure how this fits in with the alleged McCann and Healy v. Portugal application.

You could of course be right but we'll just have to wait and see - a very long wait it would appear.

Meanwhile I continue to believe it to be an elaborate hoax - just like every other aspect of this protracted saga.

Its the right to free speech vs right to repuation...Article 10 vs 8. Its against the state of portugal because its the state of portugal via the Supreme Court that has allowed Amaral to libel them

by Verdi 02.07.19 21:46

lion77 wrote: Its the right to free speech vs right to repuation...Article 10 vs 8. Its against the state of portugal because its the state of portugal via the Supreme Court that has allowed Amaral to libel them

Is that a fact.

by Guest 16.05.20 14:13

lion77 wrote:
Verdi wrote:
lion77 wrote:hi Verdi,
ive researched the facts behind the case and from what I can see the mccanns have a very strong case. Its basically a balance between item 10 and 8. Thats the right to free speech against the right to reputation. Posters might not like it but looking at previous cases the mccanns will be sussessful. We then have the right to the presumption of innocence which the SC stated does not apply in a civil court. From past rulings by the ECHR it does.

I don't believe it's a case of posters not liking it, it's more a balance of probabilities.

If, and that's a very big if and the reason I question the provenance of the McCann application being in the system as tweeted by Mark Saunokonoko), McCann and Healy must have a very strong case against Portugal, the state.

The listing denotes McCann and Healy v. Portugal, not M. Amaral, the Portuguese police or any other isolated individual. That simple fact immediately overturns your point about the right to free speech against the right to reputation.

You say you have been researching the McCanns case which has led you to believe the strength of their chances. Do you have inside knowledge to enable you to assess the McCanns position, like detail of their briefs strategy?

As regards the presumption of innocence, I'm not sure how this fits in with the alleged McCann and Healy v. Portugal application.

You could of course be right but we'll just have to wait and see - a very long wait it would appear.

Meanwhile I continue to believe it to be an elaborate hoax - just like every other aspect of this protracted saga.
Its the right to free speech vs right to repuation...Article 10 vs 8. Its against the state of portugal because its the state of portugal via the Supreme Court that has allowed Amaral to libel them

Amaral didn't libel them.

by lion77 16.05.20 18:03

BlueBag wrote:
lion77 wrote:
Verdi wrote:
lion77 wrote:hi Verdi,
ive researched the facts behind the case and from what I can see the mccanns have a very strong case. Its basically a balance between item 10 and 8. Thats the right to free speech against the right to reputation. Posters might not like it but looking at previous cases the mccanns will be sussessful. We then have the right to the presumption of innocence which the SC stated does not apply in a civil court. From past rulings by the ECHR it does.

I don't believe it's a case of posters not liking it, it's more a balance of probabilities.

If, and that's a very big if and the reason I question the provenance of the McCann application being in the system as tweeted by Mark Saunokonoko), McCann and Healy must have a very strong case against Portugal, the state.

The listing denotes McCann and Healy v. Portugal, not M. Amaral, the Portuguese police or any other isolated individual. That simple fact immediately overturns your point about the right to free speech against the right to reputation.

You say you have been researching the McCanns case which has led you to believe the strength of their chances. Do you have inside knowledge to enable you to assess the McCanns position, like detail of their briefs strategy?

As regards the presumption of innocence, I'm not sure how this fits in with the alleged McCann and Healy v. Portugal application.

You could of course be right but we'll just have to wait and see - a very long wait it would appear.

Meanwhile I continue to believe it to be an elaborate hoax - just like every other aspect of this protracted saga.
Its the right to free speech vs right to repuation...Article 10 vs 8. Its against the state of portugal because its the state of portugal via the Supreme Court that has allowed Amaral to libel them
Amaral didn't libel them.

do you understand what libel means

by Guest 16.05.20 18:05

lion77 wrote:do you understand what libel means

Do you?

by lion77 16.05.20 18:13

pauloalexandre wrote:
lion77 wrote:do you understand what libel means
Do you?

yep....do you know how poor the record is of the Portuguese SC is at the ECHR...its pretty poor

by Guest 16.05.20 19:00

lion77 wrote:
pauloalexandre wrote:
lion77 wrote:do you understand what libel means
Do you?
yep....do you know how poor the record is of the Portuguese SC is at the ECHR...its pretty poor

Every word from your mouth.

Did you actually come to this site last year to fight "misinformation"?

by lion77 16.05.20 19:22

BlueBag wrote:
lion77 wrote:
pauloalexandre wrote:
lion77 wrote:do you understand what libel means
Do you?
yep....do you know how poor the record is of the Portuguese SC is at the ECHR...its pretty poor
Every word from your mouth.

Did you actually come to this site last year to fight "misinformation"?

i came to give my point of view..is taht a problem

by lion77 16.05.20 19:24

BlueBag wrote:They can sniff dead bodies and human blood for sure.

Amaral was right.

He didn't libel the McCanns.

we will see what the ECHR says...eventually

by **Jill Havern** 16.05.20 19:37

Before I ban you, just answer one more question: how did GA libel the McCanns?

by lion77 16.05.20 19:40

Jill Havern wrote:Before I ban you, just answer one more question: how did GA libel the McCanns?

if you cant stand another persons point of view and wish to ban me.. im not bothered ...go ahead. what happened to the claim of not supporting censorship
You either support free speech or you dont...if you ban me you dont