McCanns appeal to the European Court of Human Rights

[Carana]

          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

Wasn't that an issue for the Bristol landlord in the Joanna Yeates' case? The person who tried to incriminate him was eventually convicted as the murderer.

Even so, he'd given the police reason to suspect the landlord, who, IIRC, couldn't prove his whereabouts that evening. He said he was at home, but there was no way for the police to verify it.

[jassi]

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

I was meaning un-involved people in  general, not those personally involved

[Carana]

Question: in Portugal, would Amaral have been considered a "person of recognised public standing" or not?

[G-Unit]

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

According to the text of 277/1 sometimes enough evidence is gathered to prove that the arguido(s) didn't commit a crime. Isabel Duarte claimed that this was the case in this investigation. Had the group attended the reconstitution that may have been true, but they didn't.

[Carana]

Thank you Rob.

On the
matter of the reconstitution; it may have been a complete waste of time or it may not. The fact that the witnesses refused to attend is the important point. Because they refused the prosecutor was able to write;

We believe that the main damage was caused to the McCann arguidos, who lost the possibility to prove what they have protested since they were constituted arguidos: their innocence towards the fateful event
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/LEGAL_SUMMARY.htm

That passage states quite clearly that the McCanns remained uncleared at the time of the archiving. 277/1 is used when the prosecutor has concluded that there's enough evidence to show that the arguidos are innocent.

Ok, let's assume that 277/2 was correct, after all.

When does the presumption of innocence apply - and no longer apply - with respect to defamation / personal rights in terms of the media?



NB: Incidentally, was Amaral aware of this alleged "mistake" re 227/1 or /2 at the time, when his book had already been printed and was ready for sale as of 24 July 2008?
https://joana-morais.blogspot.com/2008/07/truth-of-lie-release-of-gonalo-amarals.html

[Robittybob1]

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?

The only solution as I see it would have been if everyone bent over backwards to attend a re-enactment and actually turned up en-mass for then the PJ would have had the problem.

[G-Unit]

Does the blame lie with the Portuguese legal system or with the McCann's Portuguese lawyers who should have understood Portuguese law?

It seems that Duarte's arguments convinced Maria Emília Guerreiro de Avillez Melo e Castro in the court of the first instance, but not the more knowledgeable and experienced senior judges of the Appeal and Supreme Courts. 

[Carana]

Does the blame lie with the Portuguese legal system or with the McCann's Portuguese lawyers who should have understood Portuguese law?

It seems that Duarte's arguments convinced Maria Emília Guerreiro de Avillez Melo e Castro in the court of the first instance, but not the more knowledgeable and experienced senior judges of the Appeal and Supreme Courts.

Fair question.

[Carana]

According to the text of 277/1 sometimes enough evidence is gathered to prove that the arguido(s) didn't commit a crime. Isabel Duarte claimed that this was the case in this investigation. Had the group attended the reconstitution that may have been true, but they didn't.

Have you had time to think of how that reconstruction could have proved their innocence in practice? I tried, but I really don't see how it could have done.

[Robittybob1]

Have you had time to think of how that reconstruction could have proved their innocence in practice? I tried, but I really don't see how it could have done.

Maybe it was impossible but the first thing was for the actors to turn up.

[jassi]

Have you had time to think of how that reconstruction could have proved their innocence in practice? I tried, but I really don't see how it could have done.

A reconstruction may have proved the opposite, but that would have been an equally worthy outcome for anyone interested in solving the disappearance.

[Venturi Swirl]

A reconstruction may have proved the opposite, but that would have been an equally worthy outcome for anyone interested in solving the disappearance.

How could it have done that either?

[G-Unit]

Ok, let's assume that 277/2 was correct, after all.

When does the presumption of innocence apply - and no longer apply - with respect to defamation / personal rights in terms of the media?



NB: Incidentally, was Amaral aware of this alleged "mistake" re 227/1 or /2 at the time, when his book had already been printed and was ready for sale as of 24 July 2008?
https://joana-morais.blogspot.com/2008/07/truth-of-lie-release-of-gonalo-amarals.html

Accordingly, this principle can not be construed as a restriction on public discussion of potentially criminal facts, despite that public bodies should, in their communications, resort to the necessary reserve to avoid creating the conviction that the arguido is in fact guilty (Cf. Konstas vs Greece of 28/11/ 11 (n° 053466/071).

http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/STJ_21_03_2017_Rejected.htm
 

[Mr Gray]

Accordingly, this principle can not be construed as a restriction on public discussion of potentially criminal facts, despite that public bodies should, in their communications, resort to the necessary reserve to avoid creating the conviction that the arguido is in fact guilty (Cf. Konstas vs Greece of 28/11/ 11 (n° 053466/071).

http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/STJ_21_03_2017_Rejected.htm

this is exactly what amaral didn't do...…..

[jassi]

How could it have done that either?

As it didn't happen, who knows.