EXCLUSIVE: Madeleine McCann’s parents will finally find out on Tuesday if they have won 14-YEAR libel battle against cop who suggested they were to blame for the girl’s disappearance

There was I, after initial scepticism, thinking GB News was/is a controversial media platform, not afraid to counter the official narrative - to look further into controversial subjects, misinformation and disinformation, to give a balanced view, open the minds of the sometimes gullible spectator.

It seems I was right in my original thoughts and wrong to later think otherwise..

Madeleine McCann's parents lose legal battle to ex-port Portuguese police man

Sep 20, 2022

Excellent Comments under the You Tube film.But what drivelling nonsense from the Oirish bloke (Holmes ?) at the end.

Luckily I can't get that channel, and it seems I am missing nothing.

https://joana-morais.blogspot.com/2022/09/mccanns-lost-their-appeals-at-echr.html?fbclid=IwAR0Bq0R1hWg9ItKwVueQayzPbtqSdZAV_ybbqpOsiEAp4NuB4A2HN529XGc


This is a full translation of the entire 34 page Judgment. Worth scanning to see how the legal process works, and how they set everything out,

I'll post a few relevant extracts.
In law - Article 8:

1. Applicability - The contentious statements made by G.A. in the book, documentary and interview in question concerned the applicants' alleged involvement in the concealment of their daughter's body, the assumption that they had staged an abduction and alleged acts of negligence towards their daughter. These allegations are of sufficient gravity to call for the application of Article 8.

Conclusion: Article 8 applicable.

2. On the merits -

The national courts clearly identified the interests at stake, namely, on the one hand, G.A.'s freedom of expression and freedom of opinion and, on the other, the right to respect for one's reputation, which was linked to the applicants' right to be presumed innocent, and they gave precedence to the rights of the former over those of the latter. They also observed that these rights deserved equal protection and that, in the circumstances, it was necessary to balance them. The question that arises is whether the national courts have balanced these rights in accordance with the criteria established by the Court's case law.


a) Contribution to a debate in the public interest

As the Supreme Court concluded, G.A.'s book, its adaptation into a documentary and his interview in a newspaper concerned a debate of public interest. Indeed, the extensive media coverage of the case was indicative of the interest it had generated both nationally and internationally.

b) The applicants' previous conduct and reputation

The Court understands that, in appealing to the media, the applicants wanted to exploit all possible means to find their daughter. Nevertheless, although they were unknown to the public before the events, their exposure to the media meant that they eventually acquired a certain public profile and entered the public sphere. As a result, they inevitably and consciously exposed themselves to close scrutiny of their actions.
***
e) The particular circumstances of the case

The Court can agree with the analysis of the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court. It is true that the statements in dispute were based on G.A.'s in-depth knowledge of the case by virtue of his position. However, they were already known to the public in light of the extensive media coverage of the case and the fact that the investigation files were made available to the media after the investigation was closed. Thus, the disputed elements are merely the expression of G.A.'s interpretation of a media case that had already been widely discussed. Moreover, it does not appear that G.A. was motivated by any personal animosity towards the applicants.

In the particular circumstances of the present case, a conviction would have had a chilling effect on freedom of expression in matters of public interest.


g) Conclusion

The Supreme Court made a careful assessment of the balance to be struck between the applicants' right to privacy and G.A.'s right to freedom of expression, assessing them in light of the criteria emerging from its case-law and making ample reference to the Court's jurisprudence. Considering the margin of appreciation enjoyed by the national authorities in this case, the Court sees no serious reason to substitute its opinion for that of the Supreme Court. The national authorities did not fail to fulfil their positive obligation to protect the applicants' right to respect for their private life.

Conclusion: no violation (unanimous).



*****
97. Finally, the Court notes that, after the publication of the book, the applicants continued their media activities. In particular, they made a documentary about their daughter's disappearance and continued to give interviews to the media at international level (see paragraph 40 (paragraphs 68 and 71) above). While the Court understands that the publication of the book undoubtedly caused the applicants anger, anxiety and concern (see paragraph 40 (paragraph 81) above), it does not appear that the book or the broadcasting of the documentary had any serious impact on their social relations or on their continuing legitimate search for their daughter.

END


Not such a Brilliant "MARKETING PLOY" after all, was it ?


Any regrets about paying Bell Pottinger that half a million quid ?
Any regrets about employing Rent-a-gob Mendax Maximus Mitchell to spout on every known news outlet in the WORLD ?

It's also transcribed here on CMOMM..

https://jillhavern.forumotion.net/t17372-joana-morais-blog-mccanns-lose-their-appeal-at-the-echr#458233

Yes,  Sorry. I only found that yesterday.
Can't have too much of a good thing !


Just out of interest, the ECHR site not allows for the possibility of a final appeal,
The Telegraph says they have decided not to, but no other paper has done.

It now reads


Current state of proceedings
Application pending possible transfer to Grand Chamber

PeterMac wrote:Can't have too much of a good thing !

Quite so!

The document is available for all to see so needs to be spread far and wide.

The press is ever so slightly close to fact with reportage of this latest development, although sufficiently diluted to pave the way for future misinterpretation.

Someone's got to keep the truth floating on the surface.

Thanks to PeterMac and Verdi and others for posting the judgement on the forum, and all the comments on it, there is very much more information in this thread than the entirety of the UK's (decreasingly) Main Stream Media in the past week. You can save time by disregarding any article with 'libel' in it.

GB News is a newcomer to MSM and trying conspicuously hard to fall into line. We heard at the time certain mouths speak for the McCanns to say it was normal for people in the UK to go out like this on holiday (we don't) and how much they regret their mistake. Opinion columns and vacuous breakfast tv hosts held the 'there but for the grace of God' line and 90% of any YouTube comment section is guileless folk condemning them for leaving their babies alone. No neglect = No abduction, it's a trade-off that was made and see any of the comment sections to spot the same poster in different guises excusing even this with "Haven't they suffered enough?" Look at the Amsterdam photo to the right of this page and decide.

The real judgement should fall on UK newspapers, radio and tv. See the invariable references to libel and wonder why none of them explain it when the case is McCann and Healy v. Portugal.

On Wednesday after the judgement I bought The Times newspaper for the first time in 20 years (£2.50 can you believe it?) to see what a paper of record had to say about the case. I'm slightly appalled it has become tabloid but I still hoped for straight reporting, here by Jonathan Ames Legal Editor. Tucked away on page 15 the subhead 'Setback for McCanns in police libel case' didn't inspire confidence. This apparently is the latest stage in the couple's legal battle against a retired Portuguese detective who claimed they were involved in their daughter's disappearance. Just him then, no one else? The reader is told his claims prompted the McCanns to sue for libel and unsuprisingly no details of this are given.

Next paragraph begins "They initially won that claim" in the way perhaps that San Marino initially won against England in 1993 by scoring first and losing 7-1. That the courts dealt with a libel claim is repeated.

Next paragraph, that it was a libel case is repeated again.

The McCanns were named as possible suspects (no dancing around the meaning of arguido) "but Amaral was sacked as head of the local police soon afterwards" and that leaves an impression this was the cause. Claims appear to be his alone because he wrote the book, no mention of the PJ or what it means when the case is archived.

After the McCann statement in full, the conclusion of the article is warmed over guff on Bruckner and a quote from Winnie the Pooh. Goodbye, The Times of London, till twenty years if you or I are still here. The case of missing Madeleine McCann most assuredly will be.

Thanks, I missed the Times article - I think. Here is the online version in all it's glory..

Madeleine McCann’s parents lose latest court case against Portuguese detective

Jonathan Ames, Legal Editor
Tuesday September 20 2022, 11.20am, The Times



Kate and Gerry McCann have lost the latest stage of their legal battle against a retired Portuguese detective who had claimed they were involved in their daughter’s disappearance.

Goncalo Amaral alleged that the parents were responsible for what happened to Madeleine McCann, who was three when she was discovered missing from a holiday apartment in Praia da Luz in 2007.

The former police officer made the claims in a book, television documentary and newspaper interview, prompting the McCanns to sue him for libel.



They initially won that claim but the ruling was ultimately overturned by a higher court in Portugal.

Lawyers for the parents then brought a claim in the European Court of Human Rights, arguing that the Portuguese authorities had breached their right to respect for a private and family life in th

e way that the courts dealt with their libel claims against Amaral.

However, judges in Strasbourg ruled today that the local authorities had given the parents a fair hearing in their libel battle against Amaral.

In 2007 the parents were named as possible suspects but Amaral was soon after sacked as head of the local police. He then wrote a book, The Truth of the Lie, in which he claimed Madeleine had died in an accident and the couple had covered it up.

In its judgment today the court ruled that even if the parents’ reputation had been damaged by the Portuguese libel proceedings, that damage “was not on account of the argument put forward by the book’s author but rather as a result of the suspicions expressed against them, which had led to their being placed under investigation in the course of the criminal investigation”.


Madeleine was abducted from her bed while on holiday with her parents
PA

The court ruled, therefore, that “the information had thus been brought to the public’s attention in some detail even before the investigation file was made available to the media and the book in question was published. It followed that the national authorities had not failed in their positive obligation to protect the applicants’ right to respect for their private life”.

The McCanns now have three months to appeal against the decision.

Two years ago German police named Christian Brueckner, a convicted paedophile, as a suspect in the case. Investigators said that Brueckner was thought to have been in the Algarve resort where Madeleine was abducted from her bed and that he allegedly discussed her disappearance in an internet chatroom.

In May German officials denied a parole application for Brueckner, who is serving a sentence for the rape of a 72-year-old American tourist on the Algarve. Officials ruled that there was a risk that he could commit further crimes.

The announcement came 15 years after Madeleine’s disappearance and coincided with her parents publicly reiterating that it was essential they find out the truth.

The McCanns marked the anniversary with a quote from A A Milne’s Winnie the Pooh series: “The most important thing is, even if we’re apart, I’ll always be with you.”

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/madeleine-mccanns-parents-lose-latest-court-case-against-portuguese-detective-w3thxrfdr


The court noted that the Portuguese prosecutor’s office had ultimately decided to take no further action but that regardless the case “had led to intense media attention and much controversy”.

I truly wish the journalists would do their homework before reporting on any subject - either that or .

Clearly the information came from a press release issued by the ECHR on Tuesday 20th September 2022 and as to be expected, the respective journalists put their own slant on the story. Thus leaving out the important bits whilst embellishing the deliberate (?) misunderstandings.

The conclusion of the public notice issued by Messrs Gerry and Kate McCann is interesting..

We hope that with, the help of the public, hard work and diligence we can eventually find those responsible for Madeleine’s disappearance and bring them to justice.
Kate and Gerry McCann

What .... no abduction?

of course no abduction, it happened differently, they know, they were there.

I wonder what Peter Hyatt would make of this part of their statement… ‘The focus is now rightly on the search for Madeleine and her abductor(s).’

Why would the focus be on Maddie NOW?
Shouldn’t that have RIGHTLY been their primary concern for the past 15 years?

Poor wee lassie.

"We hope that with, the help of the public, hard work and diligence we can eventually find those responsible for Madeleine’s disappearance and bring them to justice."

Which interpreted means

We hope, that with the help of the compliant Media, to whom we paid vast amounts of money, and with the help of armies of acolytes and apologists, who will continue their hard work and diligence to ensure that the facts are never analysed properly, that the nonsense story about Abduction and Paed****** can be extended indefinitely, and that anyone responsible for saying anything else is brought to a mis-carriage of Justice.

Keelafreeze wrote:I wonder what Peter Hyatt would make of this part of their statement…  ‘The focus is now rightly on the search for Madeleine and her abductor(s).’

Why would the focus be on Maddie NOW?
Shouldn’t that have RIGHTLY been their primary concern for the past 15 years?

Poor wee lassie.

onboard the good ship CMOMM Keelafreeze

I think team McCann are trying to imply that nasty Portuguese man who did his upmost to solve the case of their missing daughter, little Madeleine, has used up all their valuable time needlessly taking him, Snr Amaral, through every court of law in the land that would allow them through the door.

Since the beginning of May 2007 there has never been any indication to suggest team McCann ever searched for Madeleine.  They talk glibly about 'their own investigation' - what are they talking about?  Investigate what exactly?

If they mean hiring dodgy private dicks to pervert the course of justice then it has to be admitted - top marks!  Team McCann have never 'searched', they have never 'investigated' anything, their only objective was to protect themselves, thus built a bastion of high profile support to build an impenetrable firewall.

10/10!

https://jillhavern.forumotion.net/t16909-the-mccanns-private-detectives#422506

They are so annoyingly transparent but I guess that matters not when cosseted by the establishment.

Weekend repeat..

The McCanns Did Not Physically Search for Madeleine

Gerry went to SLEEP.  Kate told the world, so it must be true.

She should know - she was there .

that being there or being not there has quite a lifespan in this story.

so the uk police still believe they have an alibi, because they were not in 5a. but that becomes silly when we look at the charges. being faking an abduction and getting rid of the body. 

even only the thursday evening has enough time to spend to do just that. even without others in the know. 
gerry's long sanitation check just after 9.00 hours. there is no way to establish the exact time he was gone. not from his own statements or that of others. 

also after the missus had set the alarm sometime around 22.00 hours, the same no exact timing possible, only the mccann's did access 5a. jane was in 5d by her version, diane was left in the restaurant, all others started to search the surroundings for a first short stint. 

both left at first light by kate mccann her version, and have been only seen when they got back around 7.00 hours. 

any time before that evening and 20.30 hours make a lot more possible. so i do not get how experienced police officers get that into an alibi, because they have been at times that evening at the tapas. but when you promote the idea of a burglary gone wrong, that third party has so little time to do that, why the idea the mccann's could not have used the same amounts of time to do the same?

 there was in reality not even proof of a faked abduction, no one ever saw the open shutters and windows, no traces of a third party getting access to 5a, or any actions that could have been taken to abduct a child. 
even the timelines did not give enough time to abduct a child versus the state of 5a. 

and when kate mccann tells us, it happened differently, she knows, because she was there, that was a major brain leak. it was a point blanc deep emotional driven answer, and i still think that was a true answer. 

all in all the portuguese police never could clear them as suspects in the case of the missing child madeleine mccann. the portuguese police could simply not prove what they did, or did not. it is just still an open question. not proven does not mean innocent. you would expect people with a university degree could understand the wording as it was given by the portuguese supreme court, but they did pay for that answer, the echr itself is free, the lawyers you need are not. 

the idea they ever had been cleared and because of that must be innocent, is just a mccann mindfuck, and i can understand the uk has taken restrictions in what the press and media can do with alternative views, but i can not understand it when outside the uk the reporting about the innocent dream and not existing clearing of the mccanns, what was an integral part of the verdict to decide about by the echr, and that verdict told the mccanns that was a wrong understanding, still got to be used in a story about that verdict. 

and i never got the idea, the mccann's are innocent could fit in an alternative view, it is sold as the only view. not in the sense we did and could not hear or read about their version of the truth. they used their voice, and that of their family and acolytes very well. and it was what got the uk press and media voiced already extremely well at the time that amaral his book got out. 

but yeah, telling they started a row of court cases, because they were mad as hell, and had the idea to being able to kill the messenger would not bring in the money to do that. and maybe they are still mad because they never got a go fund me page up and running. 

so now they still have the free ride because the fund will have to pay the outstanding court costs and their lawyers fees, with the not surprising result there is no money left to start their version of searching. so their non understanding of the juridical processes is exactly what will be hindering that version of searching they like more. the fund funded by the same press and media, they are always very welcome to tell their version.

it was actually an extremely well investment , these press and media releases against the mccann version, the story is still the best cash cow in the field, so press and media would not mind which side they have to take on board, it still pays out. the mccann's could also easily find the money, they have as mastermind behind their version of their truth always the movie rights in the pocket. there must be at least one very good script writer out there that can make sense of their version. all you need is the by line; based on the true story of the mccann's.