McCanns appeal to the European Court of Human Rights

[Eleanor]

Let's get back on topic please.

I should have a word with Carly, if I was you.  I can't be arsed.

[Mr Gray]

So how was their right to the presumption of innocence damaged? Was it because Amaral breached the duty of reserve, or was it because the archiving dispatch was equal to an acquittal? They used both arguments and the courts rejected both.

Their right to the presumption of innocence was damaged because they had the right to be presumed innocent.
The SC did not allow them this right and allowed amaral to imply they were, guilty... Same as the case Re Finland at the ECHR

[Robittybob1]

If I'm right it is a fact. .but I haven't claimed to be right... Why the persistent argument

Why the persistent argument!  It was you who wants the mods to pull G-unit up for presenting opinion as fact.  Who determines what is fact?

[G-Unit]

Their right to the presumption of innocence was damaged because they had the right to be presumed innocent.
The SC did not allow them this right and allowed amaral to imply they were, guilty... Same as the case Re Finland at the ECHR

It was. at the time covered in his book, the theory held and followed by the investigation. Why shouldn't he write about it? They spread their theory world-wide.

[Mr Gray]

Why the persistent argument!  It was you who wants the mods to pull G-unit up for presenting opinion as fact.  Who determines what is fact?

It was, Eleanor who asked gunit to stop quoting opinion as fact...I merely repeated it... It's quite, easy to seperate the two

[Mr Gray]

It was. at the time covered in his book, the theory held and followed by the investigation. Why shouldn't he write about it? They spread their theory world-wide.

He shouldn't write about it if it is defamatory... It's a simple as that... The mccanns theory is not defamatory.

The official investigation never claimed it could prove maddie was not abducted and died in the apartment....and her death was covered up and an abduction simulated

[Robittybob1]

Their right to the presumption of innocence was damaged because they had the right to be presumed innocent.
The SC did not allow them this right and allowed amaral to imply they were, guilty... Same as the case Re Finland at the ECHR

As the police build up evidence against a certain person there must come a time when the police present their evidence to the prosecutor and the prosecutor decides whether there is enough evidence to proceed with the case.

There must be points in time where the people involved in the process think the perpetrator is liable.  Do they keep on presuming the alleged perpetrator is presumed innocent?
Hence the duty of reserve.  These people should say nothing to affect the public's perception that the accused is anything other than innocent until proven guilty.

How can the SC toss aside the need for "the duty of reserve" is a mystery to me.

[Robittybob1]

It was, Eleanor who asked gunit to stop quoting opinion as fact...I merely repeated it... It's quite, easy to seperate the two

If that is the case you should be badgering Eleanor to moderate G-unit not me.   All I asked was for you to be careful not to present "ad hom" arguments.

[Mr Gray]

As the police build up evidence against a certain person there must come a time when the police present their evidence to the prosecutor and the prosecutor decides whether there is enough evidence to proceed with the case.

There must be points in time where the people involved in the process think the perpetrator is liable.  Do they keep on presuming the alleged perpetrator is presumed innocent?
Hence the duty of reserve.  These people should say nothing to affect the public's perception that the accused is anything other than innocent until proven guilty.

How can the SC toss aside the need for "the duty of reserve" is a mystery to me.

it isnt just the duty of reserve...the mccanns have the right to the presumption of innocence.
almeidas reprt ...which amaral relied upon contains factual errors regarding evidence.

[Mr Gray]

If that is the case you should be badgering Eleanor to moderate G-unit not me.   All I asked was for you to be careful not to present "ad hom" arguments.

I didnt present any ad hom argument as I pointed out. Eleanor...it seems..in her own words...cant be arsed. I merely pointed out that you were badgering me when two other posters were clearly breaking forum rules

[Robittybob1]

it isnt just the duty of reserve...the mccanns have the right to the presumption of innocence.
almeidas reprt ...which amaral relied upon contains factual errors regarding evidence.

As I've said several times now who determines fact?

[Mr Gray]

As I've said several times now who determines fact?

are you saying you cannot diferentiate between what is fact and what is opinion...that really is basic..

try this

maddie disappered
maddie was abducted

which one is fact and which is opinion

[Robittybob1]

I didnt present any ad hom argument as I pointed out. Eleanor...it seems..in her own words...cant be arsed. I merely pointed out that you were badgering me when two other posters were clearly breaking forum rules

Remember - I am the moderator.  IMO you were using ad hom arguments.  End of story.

[Mr Gray]

Remember - I am the moderator.  IMO you were using ad hom arguments.  End of story.

in your opinion...yet even when i say I THINK something happened you think im stating fact
you might be the moderator but you have had decisions reversed by John. I will keep a copy of all my posts and refer to john if I disagree with your decision...John is end of story not you.

[Robittybob1]

in your opinion...yet even when i say I THINK something happened you think im stating fact
you might be the moderator but you have had decisions reversed by John. I will keep a copy of all my posts and refer to john if I disagree with your decision...John is end of story not you.

You won't need to if you become conscious of not using ad hom arguments.