McCanns appeal to the European Court of Human Rights

[Mr Gray]

G-unit may be able to explain this, but it has to do with being able to prove innocence.

No one should have to prove innocence... That's why there is a presumption  of innocence
Gunit believes it does not apply in a civil case but libel cases I have quoted from the ECHR shows it does

[Carana]

G-unit may be able to explain this, but it has to do with being able to prove innocence.

Any idea how carrying out that reconstruction could have proven their innocence?

Even if, on the night, everything happened as they said it did, would that have finally invalidated the hypothesis that they could have been responsible for an as-yet undetermined crime concerning their daughter?

[Carana]

IMO what a reconstruction may have challenged is the checking routine. Which ironically enough could have given more time for Madeleine to go missing without being observed.

LOL I'd thought of that, as well.

Either they really did check on their kids at regular 30-45min intervals, with some passing by within 10-15 mins of each other), in which case the reconstruction might have been able to prove that some fat geezer had, in the meantime, got stuck in the window and they couldn't possibly have not noticed (the window was out of the line of vision for those heading towards the main entrance and was largely hidden behind a tree... but those are details).

Or, said geezer was slim and agile but would have needed more time to get through than the supposed timings allowed. Conclusion: their checks weren't as frequent as they'd said.

If that were the case, then indeed it would have left more time for someone to get in via that window.

If the police were only interested in entry via the window, the elephant in the room is whether or not the police had verified if someone could have got in at any time via either door, and not the window as the parents had originally assumed.

Isn't that a bit self-defeating?

[Mr Gray]

This proving innocence really is total rubbish... Barry George has had two court cases, and still hasn't proved his innocence.  Itcan be absolutely impossible to prove innocence so why do the Portuguese expect it... It's totally against natural justice... Imo

[Carana]

No one should have to prove innocence... That's why there is a presumption  of innocence
Gunit believes it does not apply in a civil case but libel cases I have quoted from the ECHR shows it does

As a moral principle, I certainly agree with you, Davel. The question is when does it apply - or not apply - in a legal sense.

[G-Unit]

There are so many points of contention here it's difficult to know where to start...

Do you have a cite fir the McCann's felt they had been declared innocent..

What the SC seems to have done... As Carana also pointed out... Is replace the McCann's presumption  of innocence with a presumption of guilt.... Another possible point fir the ECHR

It's not easy to answer either. I think I referred to the McCann team, rather than the McCanns themselves. Archiving using 277/1 is, according to Duarte, an assurance that the arguidos were innocent because;

Article 277 - Archiving of the investigation

1 - The Public Ministry shall, by dispatch, close the investigation, as soon as it has gathered sufficient evidence that the crime was not confirmed, that the arguido did not practice it in any way or that the procedure is legally inadmissible
http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/Annulment_request.htm

[Mr Gray]

It's not easy to answer either. I think I referred to the McCann team, rather than the McCanns themselves. Archiving using 277/1 is, according to Duarte, an assurance that the arguidos were innocent because;

Article 277 - Archiving of the investigation

1 - The Public Ministry shall, by dispatch, close the investigation, as soon as it has gathered sufficient evidence that the crime was not confirmed, that the arguido did not practice it in any way or that the procedure is legally inadmissible
http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/Annulment_request.htm

so in reality your claim taht the mccanns felt...they had been declared innocent..has no basis in fact...and just another myth

[Mr Gray]

          quote,,,,,,,,,At no stage of the criminal justice process is anyone required to prove their innocence. At trial, the onus is placed on the Crown to show beyond reasonable doubt that the accused person is guilty. At appeal, the court decides whether fresh admissible evidence or some significant defect at trial renders the conviction ‘unsafe’.  Appellants are not obliged to produce proof of innocence but rather that the evidence which convicted them is seriously flawed.  In practice, the substantial majority of truly innocent (but convicted) persons would struggle to provide proof that they couldn’t have committed the offence.


https://www.insidejusticeuk.com/articles/proving-innocence/63

[G-Unit]

Any idea how carrying out that reconstruction could have proven their innocence?

Even if, on the night, everything happened as they said it did, would that have finally invalidated the hypothesis that they could have been responsible for an as-yet undetermined crime concerning their daughter?

Nobody knows because they didn't do it. That refusal to cooperate with the investigators had significant and far-reaching consequences. 

[Mr Gray]

Nobody knows because they didn't do it. That refusal to cooperate with the investigators had significant and far-reaching consequences.

it may have but it should not have...remember the mccanns did not refuse

[Mr Gray]

Nobody knows because they didn't do it. That refusal to cooperate with the investigators had significant and far-reaching consequences.

it dpesnt ke much thought to realise tht a reconstruction could not prove their innocence. the only ay the mccanns can prove their inocence is if the actual culprit is found and their is overwhelming evidence to convict him

[Venturi Swirl]

Nobody knows because they didn't do it. That refusal to cooperate with the investigators had significant and far-reaching consequences.

Only because of the bizarre totally (IMO) illogical machinations of the PT judicial system.

[jassi]

Only because of the bizarre totally (IMO) illogical machinations of the PT judicial system.

The system is what it is and one has to accept that, however unhappy one might be about it.

[Mr Gray]

The system is what it is and one has to accept that, however unhappy one might be about it.

one doesnt have to accept it..thats what the ECHR is for

[Venturi Swirl]

The system is what it is and one has to accept that, however unhappy one might be about it.

If that were true then there would never be challenges to miscarriages of justice.