McCanns seek to have Supreme Court judgement annulled in libel damages case.

[Alice Purjorick]

Do you consider circumstantial evidence evidence ( let's take the ' I won't answer your question if you don't answer mine' as read shall we ! )

It will be interesting to see how he answers that one...

[G-Unit]

you need to read it again and you will see you are wrong in this instance...

Argument from ignorance (from Latin: argumentum ad ignorantiam), also known as appeal to ignorance (in which ignorance represents "a lack of contrary evidence"), is a fallacy in informal logic. It asserts that a proposition is true because it has not yet been proved false (or vice versa). This represents a type of false dichotomy in that it excludes a third option, which is that: there may have been an insufficient investigation, and therefore there is insufficient information to prove the proposition be either true or false. Nor does it allow the admission that the choices may in fact not be two (true or false), but may be as many as four



If I was to say that the lack of evidence PROVES the mccanns ARE innocent then that would be an argument from ignorance...

but that is not what is being said.......what is being said is that the absence of evidence is evidence of innocence...then that is perfectly correct.....you need to think about it

OK. So you leave three children alone in a room and an ornament gets broken. All three children deny breaking it. You search around and question the children but they continue to deny it. You have no evidence to tell you what happened. Does that mean all three children are innocent?

[Mr Gray]

OK. So you leave three children alone in a room and an ornament gets broken. All three children deny breaking it. You search around and question the children but they continue to deny it. You have no evidence to tell you what happened. Does that mean all three children are innocent?

you again are asking for proof of innocence.


the fact that there is no evidence against the mccanns supports the view they are innocent....ie...it is evidence of innocence

[Brietta]

you need to read it again and you will see you are wrong in this instance...

Argument from ignorance (from Latin: argumentum ad ignorantiam), also known as appeal to ignorance (in which ignorance represents "a lack of contrary evidence"), is a fallacy in informal logic. It asserts that a proposition is true because it has not yet been proved false (or vice versa). This represents a type of false dichotomy in that it excludes a third option, which is that: there may have been an insufficient investigation, and therefore there is insufficient information to prove the proposition be either true or false. Nor does it allow the admission that the choices may in fact not be two (true or false), but may be as many as four



If I was to say that the lack of evidence PROVES the mccanns ARE innocent then that would be an argument from ignorance...

but that is not what is being said.......what is being said is that the absence of evidence is evidence of innocence...then that is perfectly correct.....you need to think about it

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.

[Mr Gray]

Clearly, the absence of any evidence of an intruder has no significance for you?

the absence of evidence has significance but does not exclude an intruder

[Brietta]

OK. So you leave three children alone in a room and an ornament gets broken. All three children deny breaking it. You search around and question the children but they continue to deny it. You have no evidence to tell you what happened. Does that mean all three children are innocent?

Possibly.

The exact scenario you described happened in my house with a heavy crystal vase. 

No-one would 'confess'. 

It was only years down the line when the exact break was replicated in the remaining matching vase without human interaction of any kind, that the children's innocence was established.

Therefore no mystery.  No culprit.  Perhaps just a design fault or a flaw in the crystal.

[G-Unit]

you again are asking for proof of innocence.


the fact that there is no evidence against the mccanns supports the view they are innocent....ie...it is evidence of innocence

They, however, maintain that the inquiry found evidence which proved their innocence.

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, this conclusion substantiating an archiving for factual reasons,

[G-Unit]

Possibly.

The exact scenario you described happened in my house with a heavy crystal vase. 

No-one would 'confess'. 

It was only years down the line when the exact break was replicated in the remaining matching vase without human interaction of any kind, that the children's innocence was established.

Therefore no mystery.  No culprit.  Perhaps just a design fault or a flaw in the crystal.

At the time, however, the absence of evidence didn't constitute evidence of innocence. It simply meant you didn't know what happened.

[Mr Gray]

They, however, maintain that the inquiry found evidence which proved their innocence.

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, this conclusion substantiating an archiving for factual reasons,

sufficient proof is an odd expression....there is either proof or not. It may well be it is a bad transaltion and should read ...sufficient evidence....


prova......can be translated as both proof or evidence

[Robittybob1]

At the time, however, the absence of evidence didn't constitute evidence of innocence. It simply meant you didn't know what happened.

That is why they are presumed innocent till proven guilty.

[slartibartfast]

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 think Davel has explained very well why the SC reached their conclusions regarding the innocence question, as there is no proof of innocence and no one else has been found guilty then they cannot have been cleared. Still presumed innocent in a court of law if it ever happened.

[Robittybob1]

I think Davel has explained very well why the SC reached their conclusions regarding the innocence question, as there is no proof of innocence and no one else has been found guilty then they cannot have been cleared. Still presumed innocent in a court of law if it ever happened.

A person has the right to be presumed innocent by everyone at all times till proven guilty, not just once charged.

[G-Unit]

Presumed innocent by everyone at all times till proven guilty, not just once charged.

The presumption of innocence is a legal requirement applicable to anyone involved in criminal proceedings.

The SC said it wasn't applicable in a civil case;

Page 68
But is, in this case, the protection of the appellants' rights to their good name and reputation closely related to the presumption of innocence, as said in the first instance's sentence?

First of all it has to be said that the principle of the presumption of innocence (art. 32°-2 of the CRP, 11°-1 of the UDHR and 6°-2 of the European Convention on Human Rights) is a rule of treatment to be given to the arguido (formal suspect) throughout the judicial criminal process.

Nevertheless, the Court of Justice of the European Union has decided that the principle of presumption of innocence does not apply to subsequent civil proceedings (mainly compensatory) to criminal proceedings, at risk of depriving the victim of her own right to accede to the courts and to be compensated (Cf. the judgements in Y vs Norvvay (56568/00) of 11/ 5/2003 and Diacendo vs Italy (124/04) of 05/07/2012).

the outcome of the present case is not such as to call into question the extra-procedural dimension of the presumption of innocence.


We consider, therefore, that the invocation of breach of the principle of presumption of innocence should not be upheld. That principle does not fall under the decision about the question that has to be resolved.

[Robittybob1]

The presumption of innocence is a legal requirement applicable to anyone involved in criminal proceedings.

The SC said it wasn't applicable in a civil case;

Page 68
But is, in this case, the protection of the appellants' rights to their good name and reputation closely related to the presumption of innocence, as said in the first instance's sentence?

First of all it has to be said that the principle of the presumption of innocence (art. 32°-2 of the CRP, 11°-1 of the UDHR and 6°-2 of the European Convention on Human Rights) is a rule of treatment to be given to the arguido (formal suspect) throughout the judicial criminal process.

Nevertheless, the Court of Justice of the European Union has decided that the principle of presumption of innocence does not apply to subsequent civil proceedings (mainly compensatory) to criminal proceedings, at risk of depriving the victim of her own right to accede to the courts and to be compensated (Cf. the judgements in Y vs Norvvay (56568/00) of 11/ 5/2003 and Diacendo vs Italy (124/04) of 05/07/2012).

the outcome of the present case is not such as to call into question the extra-procedural dimension of the presumption of innocence.


We consider, therefore, that the invocation of breach of the principle of presumption of innocence should not be upheld. That principle does not fall under the decision about the question that has to be resolved.

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.

[Mr Gray]

I think Davel has explained very well why the SC reached their conclusions regarding the innocence question, as there is no proof of innocence and no one else has been found guilty then they cannot have been cleared. Still presumed innocent in a court of law if it ever happened.

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