Author Topic: McCanns seek to have Supreme Court judgement annulled in libel damages case.  (Read 61512 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline slartibartfast

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.

It would presumably validated the timelines and helped jog memories.
“Reasoning will never make a Man correct an ill Opinion, which by Reasoning he never acquired”.

Offline Mr Gray

No it isn't Dave, lack of evidence just means there was an insufficiency of evidence to conduct a trial.

just like if someone is found not guilty it doesnt mean they are innocent....but it is evidence they are innocent

Alfie

  • Guest
It would presumably validated the timelines and helped jog memories.
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?

Offline Mr Gray

"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

Offline Mr Gray

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.....

Offline 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.
“Reasoning will never make a Man correct an ill Opinion, which by Reasoning he never acquired”.

Offline Alice Purjorick

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.
"Navigating the difference between weird but normal grief and truly suspicious behaviour is the key for any detective worth his salt.". ….Sarah Bailey

Alfie

  • Guest
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?

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.
Read and abide by the forum rules.
Result = happy posting.
Ignore and break the rules
Result = edits, deletions and unhappiness
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?board=2.0

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.
Moderation
John has instructed all moderators to take a very strong line with posters who constantly breach the rules of this forum.  This sniping, goading, name calling and other various forms of disruption will cease.

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 »
Moderation
John has instructed all moderators to take a very strong line with posters who constantly breach the rules of this forum.  This sniping, goading, name calling and other various forms of disruption will cease.

Offline Mr Gray

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

Offline 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.
“Reasoning will never make a Man correct an ill Opinion, which by Reasoning he never acquired”.

Offline Mr Gray

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

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. 
Read and abide by the forum rules.
Result = happy posting.
Ignore and break the rules
Result = edits, deletions and unhappiness
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?board=2.0