Author Topic: McCann's file an annulment request following Supreme Court's decision. Now dismissed.  (Read 8297 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Online davel

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

you will find i have alraedy pointed that out... a million times..

a not guilty verdict must be evidence someone is innocent....though not proof
as experienced investigators...based on the evidence...we believe Madeleine McCann was removed from the apartment by a stranger....DCI Redwood...Scotland Yard

Neither the McCanns nor their friend are persons of interest or suspects

If civil questions are being asked can we have the courtesy to provide civil answers.

Online davel

Sorry that would have proved nothing.  The McCanns could have murdered the child, chopped her up and fed her to the pigs, the timeline would not have precluded that possibility would it?

and of course cleaned the chalet from top to bottom so no evidence remains.....
as experienced investigators...based on the evidence...we believe Madeleine McCann was removed from the apartment by a stranger....DCI Redwood...Scotland Yard

Neither the McCanns nor their friend are persons of interest or suspects

If civil questions are being asked can we have the courtesy to provide civil answers.

Online Slartibartfast

Sorry that would have proved nothing.  The McCanns could have murdered the child, chopped her up and fed her to the pigs, the timeline would not have precluded that possibility would it?

They are not called the scales of justice for nothing. Anything that adds to one side or the other is useful from a point of view of getting justice. Of course, in this case, one side disengaged while the balance was not in their favour.
Helping Elite sufferers of NPD for over 2 years...

Offline Alice Purjorick

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6416
  • Total likes: 2327
  • One man's style must not be the rule of another's.
you will find i have alraedy pointed that out... a million times..

a not guilty verdict must be evidence someone is innocent....though not proof

That's either a gross exaggeration or a bare faced lie which puts your posts and opinions in perspective.
Apart from that Mrs Lincoln how did you like the play?

Online Alfie

They are not called the scales of justice for nothing. Anything that adds to one side or the other is useful from a point of view of getting justice. Of course, in this case, one side disengaged while the balance was not in their favour.
they missed the chance to PROVE their INNOCENCE.  Bollocks really wasn't it?
Only asking questions....

Offline G-Unit

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

The McCanns' complaint claims;

Page 6
As far as the appellants are aware of, the archiving at stake was carried out, in the course of the investigation, because sufficient proof had been gathered that the then arguidos did not commit any facts of a criminal relevance and in any way whatsoever,

The archiving, of course, was not due to sufficient proof of their innocence being gathered, it was due to lack of evidence to progress the case.

Hence davel's attempts to argue that a lack of evidence of guilt is evidence of innocence, which is clearly not true.
Accept nothing
Believe no-one
Confirm everything

Offline Robittybob1

The McCanns' complaint claims;

Page 6
As far as the appellants are aware of, the archiving at stake was carried out, in the course of the investigation, because sufficient proof had been gathered that the then arguidos did not commit any facts of a criminal relevance and in any way whatsoever,

The archiving, of course, was not due to sufficient proof of their innocence being gathered, it was due to lack of evidence to progress the case.

Hence davel's attempts to argue that a lack of evidence of guilt is evidence of innocence, which is clearly not true.
Is everyone just as not innocent then?  For there was no evidence found to clear you, me, in fact everyone.
What are you doing to find Madeleine?

Offline Robittybob1

It would presumably validated the timelines and helped jog memories.
Could a reconstruction have ever shown that the McCanns were innocent?
« Last Edit: March 21, 2017, 06:57:57 AM by Robittybob1 »
What are you doing to find Madeleine?

Online davel

The McCanns' complaint claims;

Page 6
As far as the appellants are aware of, the archiving at stake was carried out, in the course of the investigation, because sufficient proof had been gathered that the then arguidos did not commit any facts of a criminal relevance and in any way whatsoever,

The archiving, of course, was not due to sufficient proof of their innocence being gathered, it was due to lack of evidence to progress the case.

Hence davel's attempts to argue that a lack of evidence of guilt is evidence of innocence, which is clearly not true.

It clearly is true but I think you don't understand what evidence means
It does not mean proof
You have been proved wrong but you can't possibly admit it
as experienced investigators...based on the evidence...we believe Madeleine McCann was removed from the apartment by a stranger....DCI Redwood...Scotland Yard

Neither the McCanns nor their friend are persons of interest or suspects

If civil questions are being asked can we have the courtesy to provide civil answers.

Online Slartibartfast

Is everyone just as not innocent then?  For there was no evidence found to clear you, me, in fact everyone.

Have you been cleared in the McCann case? Serious question.
Helping Elite sufferers of NPD for over 2 years...

Online davel

One thing that has come out of this is the ridiculous suggestion that the McCanns could have proved their innocence
It is agreed that even a trial and not guilty verdict does not prove innocence so how could a reconstruction
Ridiculous
as experienced investigators...based on the evidence...we believe Madeleine McCann was removed from the apartment by a stranger....DCI Redwood...Scotland Yard

Neither the McCanns nor their friend are persons of interest or suspects

If civil questions are being asked can we have the courtesy to provide civil answers.

Offline G-Unit

Is everyone just as not innocent then?  For there was no evidence found to clear you, me, in fact everyone.

Innocence is not a legal term. No court has ever reached a verdict of 'innocent'. They may judge someone 'not guilty', but that doesn't equate to 'innocent'. Trying to bring innocence into a legal discussion doesn't work because the law has nothing to say on the subject. 
Accept nothing
Believe no-one
Confirm everything

Online davel

Innocence is not a legal term. No court has ever reached a verdict of 'innocent'. They may judge someone 'not guilty', but that doesn't equate to 'innocent'. Trying to bring innocence into a legal discussion doesn't work because the law has nothing to say on the subject.

ridiculous....it was the archiving report that brought the term into the discussion
then we have the presumption of innocence...a legal term
as experienced investigators...based on the evidence...we believe Madeleine McCann was removed from the apartment by a stranger....DCI Redwood...Scotland Yard

Neither the McCanns nor their friend are persons of interest or suspects

If civil questions are being asked can we have the courtesy to provide civil answers.

Offline G-Unit

One thing that has come out of this is the ridiculous suggestion that the McCanns could have proved their innocence
It is agreed that even a trial and not guilty verdict does not prove innocence so how could a reconstruction
Ridiculous

So the McCanns claim that the investigation gathered enough evidence to prove their innocence is clearly ridiculous also and will be rejected.
Accept nothing
Believe no-one
Confirm everything

Online davel

So the McCanns claim that the investigation gathered enough evidence to prove their innocence is clearly ridiculous also and will be rejected.

it is your argument that is ridiculous....you spend several days arguing about evidence of innocence and suddennly decide you dont like the term.

I have seen nothing about innocence being proven....only evidence of innocence...

and then the word prove....absolute proof or beyond reasonable doubt...
your logic is jumbled
as experienced investigators...based on the evidence...we believe Madeleine McCann was removed from the apartment by a stranger....DCI Redwood...Scotland Yard

Neither the McCanns nor their friend are persons of interest or suspects

If civil questions are being asked can we have the courtesy to provide civil answers.