The E.C.H.R. and the McCann's.

Certain parties, not hard to work out who those are, keep bleating that the McCann's have justifiable grounds for appealing to the E.C.H.R.

I have seen mention of articles 8 and 10, but have yet to see any basis for a real claim.

Is it just part of the ongoing strategy of the Mccann's online backers and the Mccann's themselves, that they cannot back up ?

I haven't seen any solid evidence that an application has been lodged.
I know Mitchel claimed they had, but that means nothing, he said none of them had watches with them that night and that turned out to be untrue.

One would expect the Court website to show applications in progress, but haven't found anything. Has anyone else?

Travers wrote:I haven't seen any solid evidence that an application has been lodged.
I know Mitchel claimed they had, but that means nothing, he said none of them had watches with them that night and that turned out to be untrue.

One would expect the Court website to show applications in progress, but haven't found anything. Has anyone else?

I have had a look on there, no apparent trace on there.

As to evidence, would that be Clarence Mitchell ?

As to the articles of the E.C.H.R.

http://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/Convention_ENG.pdf

Could this be just a ploy to allow them to play the victim once more?
No one in the ECHR is going to challenge or comment on their claim, so they can spin it all out for some time 'waiting to hear', then , at a timely moment, claim that the application has been rejected, on spurious grounds, naturally .
Should be good for a couple of articles by Tracey on how badly they have been treated. None of her other articles bear close comparison with the truth, so should be a doddle for her.

To me it's always given the impression of wanting to be seen to be "carrying on the fight" - even they themselves admitted they had no chance, shortly after the final Supreme Court ruling.

It is all to do with them. They won't or can't admit they've lost.

Texty wrote:To me it's always given the impression of wanting to be seen to be "carrying on the fight" - even they themselves admitted they had no chance, shortly after the final Supreme Court ruling.

That is the core of it.

Saldo wrote:It is all to do with them. They won't or can't admit they've lost.

It must be really crushing and galling, but it's entirely self-inflicted, right from the ill-advised decision to sue Amaral at the outset (which resulted in his thesis being given free worldwide publicity on countless occasions, far beyond the readership of his book), through to throwing good money after bad, in deciding to pursue the lost cause after the comprehensive 2010 court ruling.

It's not their money that has been wasted. Had they been obliged to fund the case out of their own pocket, their attitude might have been different.

Travers wrote:It's not their money that has been wasted. Had they been obliged to fund the case out of their own pocket, their attitude might have been different.

Well, latterly, Kate donated money from the sales of her book, although it will be interesting to see what happens to the amount transferred to the 'restricted fund'.

Speaking of which, only 18 days until the deadline for filing the 2017 accounts...

Ah yes, the promised open and transparent accounts.

Texty wrote:To me it's always given the impression of wanting to be seen to be "carrying on the fight" - even they themselves admitted they had no chance, shortly after the final Supreme Court ruling.

That coupled with:
"He who rides a tiger is afraid to dismount"

Do we think the ECHR Application has been rejected and is about to be revealed? Would explain the noise.

There's a lot of traffic on JF about this.
Do you really think that our friend ***** would be so vocal about a lost cause if he knew the application had been rejected?

Travers wrote:There's a lot of traffic on JF about this.
Do you really think that our friend ***** would be so vocal about a lost cause if he knew the application had been rejected?

He’s vocal about anything.

I know, but would he set himself up to look such a fool if he knew it it had failed?

Travers wrote:I know, but would he set himself up to look such a fool if he knew it it had failed?

Some of them never fail to do the ridiculous.

Travers wrote:I know, but would he set himself up to look such a fool if he knew it it had failed?

They've all done it at every previous stage of the litigation over the past several years, so no change there!

They love their fantasies.

Saldo wrote:They love their fantasies.

No, they are just losing it, big time.

Texty wrote:

Travers wrote:It's not their money that has been wasted. Had they been obliged to fund the case out of their own pocket, their attitude might have been different.

Well, latterly, Kate donated money from the sales of her book, although it will be interesting to see what happens to the amount transferred to the 'restricted fund'.

Speaking of which, only 18 days until the deadline for filing the 2017 accounts...

The law changed since the last filing. The Fund now qualifies as a Micro-Entity and can file its abbreviated accounts on line.

Slartibartfast wrote:Do we think the ECHR Application has been rejected and is about to be revealed? Would explain the noise.

Maybe they missed the deadline?
I found this amusing and informative at the same time.

http://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/Applicant_common_mistakes_ENG.pdf

If, by some chance, the ECHR finds that Portugal has breached the McCann's human rights they will have achieved more than if they had defeated Amaral. They will have discredited not just him, but his entire country.

It had to be worth a try because that has been something they and their supporters have tried to do for ten years.

The problem is that if their application is rejected or looked at and dismissed Amaral and his country will be exonerated. They will be seen as the victims of an relentless ten year campaign against them by the McCanns, their supporters and the UK MSM.

I favour the second option.

I believe the McCann's know full well they won't succeed, or their egos will not allow them to admit defeat.

Either way, others will disagree, but this to me is no more than a delaying tactic.

We don't even know if an appeal was lodged. Let's face it, the claim came from Clarence Mitchell..........

Grom wrote:If, by some chance, the ECHR finds that Portugal has breached the McCann's human rights they will have achieved more than if they had defeated Amaral. They will have discredited not just him, but his entire country.

It had to be worth a try because that has been something they and their supporters have tried to do for ten years.

The problem is that if their application is rejected or looked at and dismissed Amaral and his country will be exonerated. They will be seen as the victims of an relentless ten year campaign against them by the McCanns, their supporters and the UK MSM.

I am sure Portugal will cry all the way to the bank. "Portugal heading for another record year for tourist arrivals - Reuters" Sept 2017
You could argue that Steel and Morris dicscredited the UK.
Steel and Who? I hear folk say..........Ed Zachary!
That was as the result of the longest/biggest libel case in history and who remembers it now? [apart from saddos like me]
I think it is more like the case between Andrew Neil and Peregrine Worsthorne and who remembers that now?.[ditto]
Then moving on to the day the Israelis took out an "in progress" nuclear plant being built by the French in Baghdad in a well planned and executed air strike and who remembers that now?.[ditto]
My point being there is no such thing as cohesive "public opinion" and events are soon forgotten.
Presuming the current case does not exceed the length , 20 years, of the ironically named McLibel Trial how will the McCanns be viewed in ten years time win or lose at The ECtHR ?

Incidentally the Steel and Morris case hinged around the UK not allowing equality of arms. It could be argued that in allowing the sequestration of Sr Amarals assets Portugal were guilty of the same offence.