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

[Mr Gray]

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

[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.

[Mr Gray]

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

[Robittybob1]

Have you been cleared in the McCann case? Serious question.

Originally Goncalo Amaral included the friends as being complicit in the act of hiding the body but strangely enough no one has looked at making them arguidos.  Were they ever found to be innocent?  Was Jez Wilkins ever found to be innocent?  Since there was no evidence found how did any of these witnesses become proven innocent?
Was it just that they never came under suspicion?

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

It seems unfair that the SC would set a standard that can never be met.

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. 

Yet it was definitely used in the SC judgement.

[Mr Gray]

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

from what i can see ...although none of us are sure of the exact translation....the mccanns claim the archiving report is evidence of innocence...which is clearly true and the SC claim it is not evidence of innocence which is clearly wrong

[Mr Gray]

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.

your quote...

Page 70
Thus, it does not appear acceptable to consider that the alluded dispatch, based on the insufficiency of evidence, should be treated as evidence of innocence.


so the SC talks about innocence....which you claim is not a legal term...it talks about evidence of innocence....not proof..

you have totally lost the argument but cannot admit it....me being right is just too much for you and the other sceptics to bear



the absence of evidence is evidence of innocence....the SC is wrong...Duarte is right

[G-Unit]

ridiculous....it was the archiving report that brought the term into the discussion
then we have the presumption of innocence...a legal term

The presumption of innocence is a legal term. It is the basis on which the judiciary has to deal with those accused of committing a crime. All it means is that the burden of proof lies with the accusers to prove guilt, not with the defendant to prove innocence.

[Mr Gray]

The presumption of innocence is a legal term. It is the basis on which the judiciary has to deal with those accused of committing a crime. All it means is that the burden of proof lies with the accusers to prove guilt, not with the defendant to prove innocence.

have alook at my post above...the SC talk of innocence...the archiving report talks of innocence...your claim is ridiculously wrong

[slartibartfast]

Originally Goncalo Amaral included the friends as being complicit in the act of hiding the body but strangely enough no one has looked at making them arguidos.  Were they ever found to be innocent?  Was Jez Wilkins ever found to be innocent?  Since there was no evidence found how did any of these witnesses become proven innocent?
Was it just that they never came under suspicion?It seems unfair that the SC would set a standard that can never be met.

Yet it was definitely used in the SC judgement.

Please answer the question.

[G-Unit]

your quote...

Page 70
Thus, it does not appear acceptable to consider that the alluded dispatch, based on the insufficiency of evidence, should be treated as evidence of innocence.


so the SC talks about innocence....which you claim is not a legal term...it talks about evidence of innocence....not proof..

you have totally lost the argument but cannot admit it....me being right is just too much for you and the other sceptics to bear



the absence of evidence is evidence of innocence....the SC is wrong...Duarte is right

It is you who cannot understand. The judges were answering the claim made by the McCanns and rejecting it. They speak of 'evidence of innocence' only because Duarte does.

They are quite clear; the archiving occurred due to lack of evidence, Not, as Duarte claimed due to evidence of innocence.

[Mr Gray]

It is you who cannot understand. The judges were answering the claim made by the McCanns and rejecting it. They speak of 'evidence of innocence' only because Duarte does.

They are quite clear; the archiving occurred due to lack of evidence, Not, as Duarte claimed due to evidence of innocence.

Page 70
Thus, it does not appear acceptable to consider that the alluded dispatch, based on the insufficiency of evidence, should be treated as evidence of innocence.

this is the judges statement...it was made by them...in their language signed by them...wake up

[Alfie]

So what if anything can be treated as evidence of innocence in this case?  "Nothing" seems to be the SC's opinion.  Which seems to suggest that we are all potentially guilty of this crime.   Which means the orignal report's claim that the McCanns failed to prove their innocence is a complete nonsense and all those demanding a reconstruction for this same reason are equally deluded.  So when the current arguidos have their arguido status removed they will not have been cleared and will presumably be "in the frame" until the day they die, unless the case is ever solved.  Nice.  Once a suspect always a suspect it would seem.

[Robittybob1]

Have you been cleared in the McCann case? Serious question.

Now finally I understand your question.  I read it before and didn't understand it, but you are asking me if I was ever cleared in the McCann case and I'd have to say "No".  No one has officially cleared me.  I can only assume there was insufficient evidence of innocence.

[Robittybob1]

So what if anything can be treated as evidence of innocence in this case?  "Nothing" seems to be the SC's opinion.  Which seems to suggest that we are all potentially guilty of this crime.   Which means the orignal report's claim that the McCanns failed to prove their innocence is a complete nonsense and all those demanding a reconstruction for this same reason are equally deluded.  So when the current arguidos have their arguido status removed they will not have been cleared and will presumably be "in the frame" until the day they die, unless the case is ever solved.  Nice.  Once a suspect always a suspect it would seem.

I think it even becomes worse than that even if you are not a suspect up till now you are not clear of becoming a suspect in the future, hence not in the clear either.

[carlymichelle]

It is you who cannot understand. The judges were answering the claim made by the McCanns and rejecting it. They speak of 'evidence of innocence' only because Duarte does.

They are quite clear; the archiving occurred due to lack of evidence, Not, as Duarte claimed due to evidence of innocence.

dave; and supporters  only read what they want to read