Author Topic: McCanns seek to have Supreme Court judgement annulled in libel damages case.  (Read 9319 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline davel

Would the key word there be "subsequent" as opposed to "all" civil proceedings.
For the word subsequent to apply there had to be the criminal case first.  This hasn't happened.

Amaral's accusations are just a furthering of the criminal process and not a civil action for compensation.

That is correct

Online stephen25000


you havent been paying attention....it seems the SC ruling said that the archiving report wwas not evidence of innocence.....thats not correct...it is

LOL

You really don't understand.
The McCanns were solely responsible for their childcare arrangements and there is no one else to blame.

S and S, two more amateurs making money from a disappeared child, and clearly without a clue.

Online Alice Purjorick

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6602
  • Total likes: 2648
  • One man's style must not be the rule of another's.
It is a difficult concept for some this "absence of evidence" thing.

You have explained it very well.

Pity you hadn't been able to explain how it works to the appeal court judges,
could have saved them from laying down such an embarrassing judgement leaving it entirely appropriate for the annulment request to be submitted.

They could have Googled it like he did.................. @)(++(*

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance
I tell you it's Burt Reynolds

Offline davel

They could have Googled it like he did.................. @)(++(*

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance

gunit googled it...read it...but unfortunately didnt understand it

Online G-Unit

It is a difficult concept for some this "absence of evidence" thing.

You have explained it very well.

Pity you hadn't been able to explain how it works to the appeal court judges, could have saved them from laying down such an embarrassing judgement leaving it entirely appropriate for the annulment request to be submitted.

I'll try again. If you haven't got something (evidence) then you haven't got it. If you haven't got it it may be because it doesn't exist, because you are looking in the wrong place or because you do have it but don't recognise it. The lack of it can't be used as evidence of anything because you don't know why you haven't got it.
Accept nothing
Believe no-one
Confirm everything

Offline davel

I'll try again. If you haven't got something (evidence) then you haven't got it. If you haven't got it it may be because it doesn't exist, because you are looking in the wrong place or because you do have it but don't recognise it. The lack of it can't be used as evidence of anything because you don't know why you haven't got it.

that must be one of the most jumbled posts ever on this forum.....

try this....... someone appears in court......the prosecution offers no evidence...he is acquitted due to lack of evidence....lack of evidence therefore provides evidence of his innocence

Alfie

  • Guest
I'll try again. If you haven't got something (evidence) then you haven't got it. If you haven't got it it may be because it doesn't exist, because you are looking in the wrong place or because you do have it but don't recognise it. The lack of it can't be used as evidence of anything because you don't know why you haven't got it.
so the lack of evidence could be evidence that none exists, therefore it's evidence. 8)--))

Offline davel

A judge has directed the acquittal of a prison officer accused of making a false needle-stick allegation in Mountjoy Prison.

Judge Patricia Ryan directed the jury to acquit Robert O’Neill (aged 44) after a defence application to withdraw the case because there was no evidence to prove the accused had made a false allegation.


Acquittal due to lack of evidence..........so lack of eveidence IS evidence of innocence

Online G-Unit

A judge has directed the acquittal of a prison officer accused of making a false needle-stick allegation in Mountjoy Prison.

Judge Patricia Ryan directed the jury to acquit Robert O’Neill (aged 44) after a defence application to withdraw the case because there was no evidence to prove the accused had made a false allegation.


Acquittal due to lack of evidence..........so lack of eveidence IS evidence of innocence

The evidence to prove his guilt wasn't found. That doesn't mean he was innocent, it means they were unable to prove his guilt.

Accept nothing
Believe no-one
Confirm everything

Offline davel

The evidence to prove his guilt wasn't found. That doesn't mean he was innocent, it means they were unable to prove his guilt.


that applies to everyone found not guilty....so even if the mccanns had been tried and found not guilty that would not prove their innocence.......however im sure you would agree that an acquittal is evidence of innocence.....
« Last Edit: March 20, 2017, 10:21:45 PM by davel »

Offline John

A judge has directed the acquittal of a prison officer accused of making a false needle-stick allegation in Mountjoy Prison.

Judge Patricia Ryan directed the jury to acquit Robert O’Neill (aged 44) after a defence application to withdraw the case because there was no evidence to prove the accused had made a false allegation.

Acquittal due to lack of evidence..........so lack of evidence IS evidence of innocence

No it isn't Dave, lack of evidence just means there was an insufficiency of evidence to conduct a trial. 
A malicious prosecution for a crime which never existed. John Lamberton exposes malfeasance by public officials.
Check out my website >   http://johnlamberton.webs.com/index.htm?no_redirect=true     The truth never changes with the passage of time.

Offline John


that applies to everyone found not guilty....so even if the mccanns had been tried and found not guilty that would not prove their innocence.......however im sure you would agree that an acquittal is evidence of innocence.....

That's correct, a not guilty verdict doesn't necessarily mean that someone is innocent.  You only need to look at the Barry George and Siôn Jenkins cases where both were cleared but denied compensation because the Home Office decreed that innocence is much more than not being convicted of a crime.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2010/aug/15/sion-jenkins-billie-jo-compensation
« Last Edit: March 20, 2017, 10:40:38 PM by John »
A malicious prosecution for a crime which never existed. John Lamberton exposes malfeasance by public officials.
Check out my website >   http://johnlamberton.webs.com/index.htm?no_redirect=true     The truth never changes with the passage of time.

Online Alice Purjorick

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6602
  • Total likes: 2648
  • One man's style must not be the rule of another's.

that applies to everyone found not guilty....so even if the mccanns had been tried and found not guilty that would not prove their innocence.......however im sure you would agree that an acquittal is evidence of innocence.....

"Acquittal" equates to "not guilty" which is not the same as innocent.
I tell you it's Burt Reynolds

Online misty

"Acquittal" equates to "not guilty" which is not the same as innocent.

I thought the SC had to consider presumption of innocence rather than innocence itself.

Alfie

  • Guest
How then would a reconstitution have proved the McCanns innocence?  According to the Final Report this was a chance missed by the McCanns so someone kindly explain how.