Has The MET Also Known As Scotland Yard Met Expectation?

[pathfinder73]

Maybe they saw Julian Totman but not the man walking in the direction Jane said.

No they didn't see anybody.

He was aware of the recent picture in the papers re the person with a child wrapped in a blanket and in a males arms allegedly walking across the junction to his right but again stated that he did not see any one.
The conversation with Gerry lasted for about three minutes during which Gerry was chatty and in his normal self. Jeremy then made his way back to his apartment.

https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/JEREMY_BRIGET.htm

[Robittybob1]

No they didn't see anybody.

He was aware of the recent picture in the papers re the person with a child wrapped in a blanket and in a males arms allegedly walking across the junction to his right but again stated that he did not see any one.
The conversation with Gerry lasted for about three minutes during which Gerry was chatty and in his normal self. Jeremy then made his way back to his apartment.

https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/JEREMY_BRIGET.htm

In his rogatory interview he couldn't remember the time he met up with Gerry.

[G-Unit]

According to this report miscarriages of justice in Portugal cost the state 20 million euros a year

http://www.asjp.pt/2014/06/10/estado-paga-20-milhoes-todos-os-anos-por-erros-a-justica/

At least they're paying out. The UK makes it extremely difficult for people to claim compensation, apparently.

After the passing of an Act in 2014, exonerees in the UK now essentially have to prove their complete innocence in order to be compensated. Simply having their conviction ruled ‘unsafe’ and overturned by the appeal courts is insufficient.
https://wrongfulconvictionsblog.org/2016/04/12/yet-more-woeful-compensation-news-from-the-uk/

So much for the presumption of innocence.

[Mr Gray]

At least they're paying out. The UK makes it extremely difficult for people to claim compensation, apparently.

After the passing of an Act in 2014, exonerees in the UK now essentially have to prove their complete innocence in order to be compensated. Simply having their conviction ruled ‘unsafe’ and overturned by the appeal courts is insufficient.
https://wrongfulconvictionsblog.org/2016/04/12/yet-more-woeful-compensation-news-from-the-uk/

So much for the presumption of innocence.

You need to understand what the presumption of innocence means

From your post you obviously dont

[Vertigo Swirl]

At least they're paying out. The UK makes it extremely difficult for people to claim compensation, apparently.

After the passing of an Act in 2014, exonerees in the UK now essentially have to prove their complete innocence in order to be compensated. Simply having their conviction ruled ‘unsafe’ and overturned by the appeal courts is insufficient.
https://wrongfulconvictionsblog.org/2016/04/12/yet-more-woeful-compensation-news-from-the-uk/

So much for the presumption of innocence.

Another example of Foreign = Fab, British = Bad.  Thanks for that!

[G-Unit]

You need to understand what the presumption of innocence means

From your post you obviously dont

During their trial these people were entitled to the presumption of innocence. They were convicted and were then guilty. If that verdict was overturned then they were not proved guilty. Surely they then are entitled to the presumption of innocence again? Refusing compensation suggests they are still being presumed to be guilty.

[Mr Gray]

During their trial these people were entitled to the presumption of innocence. They were convicted and were then guilty. If that verdict was overturned then they were not proved guilty. Surely they then are entitled to the presumption of innocence again? Refusing compensation suggests they are still being presumed to be guilty.

They are entitled to the presumption of innocence but I don't think you understand what that means...

[G-Unit]

They are entitled to the presumption of innocence but I don't think you understand what that means...

To be perfectly honest I don't care what you think.

[Mr Gray]

To be perfectly honest I don't care what you think.

I already understand that... And of course I'm not bothered what you think.
The presumption of innocence is not proof of innocence it is more equivalent to being considered not guilty... Which again is not proof of innocence..

So if a suspect is found not guilty of a crime it would be libellous to suggest he had committed the crime even though his innocence has not been proven

[Mr Gray]

During their trial these people were entitled to the presumption of innocence. They were convicted and were then guilty. If that verdict was overturned then they were not proved guilty. Surely they then are entitled to the presumption of innocence again? Refusing compensation suggests they are still being presumed to be guilty.

Not guilty is not proof of innocence... That's a mistake you and others seem to make

[Mr Gray]

During their trial these people were entitled to the presumption of innocence. They were convicted and were then guilty. If that verdict was overturned then they were not proved guilty. Surely they then are entitled to the presumption of innocence again? Refusing compensation suggests they are still being presumed to be guilty.

This is a good explanation and confirms exactly as I thought


The presumption of innocence, an ancient tenet of Criminal Law, is actually a misnomer. According to the U.S. Supreme Court, the presumption of the innocence of a criminal defendant is best described as an assumption of innocence that is indulged in the absence of contrary evidence (Taylor v. Kentucky, 436 U.S. 478, 98 S. Ct. 1930, 56 L. Ed. 2d 468 [1978]). It is not considered evidence of the defendant's innocence, and it does not require that a mandatory inference favorable to the defendant be drawn from any facts in evidence.

[Holly Goodhead]

At least they're paying out. The UK makes it extremely difficult for people to claim compensation, apparently.

After the passing of an Act in 2014, exonerees in the UK now essentially have to prove their complete innocence in order to be compensated. Simply having their conviction ruled ‘unsafe’ and overturned by the appeal courts is insufficient.
https://wrongfulconvictionsblog.org/2016/04/12/yet-more-woeful-compensation-news-from-the-uk/

So much for the presumption of innocence.

I'm quoting from a chapter in a  book written by William Clegg QC who represented Barry George at his appeal and second trial where he was acquitted:

He received no compensation because he was unable to prove beyond reasonable doubt that he was innocent, which is the high test that is set before compensation is awarded.

Its a disgusting system imo.  The MET were unable to solve the murder of Jill Dando and a year after her murder concocted a case against local man Barry George who suffered mental and physical disabilities.  All the ballistics evidence shows without any doubt Jill Dando was murdered by someone extremely accomplished with firearms which was way beyond the likes of Barry George.

The lead officer on the case Hamish Campbell had some involvement in MM's case too.

[Mr Gray]

I'm quoting from a chapter in a  book written by William Clegg QC who represented Barry George at his appeal and second trial where he was acquitted:

He received no compensation because he was unable to prove beyond reasonable doubt that he was innocent, which is the high test that is set before compensation is awarded.

Its a disgusting system imo.  The MET were unable to solve the murder of Jill Dando and a year after her murder concocted a case against local man Barry George who suffered mental and physical disabilities.  All the ballistics evidence shows without any doubt Jill Dando was murdered by someone extremely accomplished with firearms which was way beyond the likes of Barry George.

The lead officer on the case Hamish Campbell had some involvement in MM's case too.

Do you have a cite for what you claim is proved without doubt... I doubt you do

[Holly Goodhead]

Do you have a cite for what you claim is proved without doubt... I doubt you do

A cite for what?

[G-Unit]

This is a good explanation and confirms exactly as I thought


The presumption of innocence, an ancient tenet of Criminal Law, is actually a misnomer. According to the U.S. Supreme Court, the presumption of the innocence of a criminal defendant is best described as an assumption of innocence that is indulged in the absence of contrary evidence (Taylor v. Kentucky, 436 U.S. 478, 98 S. Ct. 1930, 56 L. Ed. 2d 468 [1978]). It is not considered evidence of the defendant's innocence, and it does not require that a mandatory inference favorable to the defendant be drawn from any facts in evidence.

That destroys Duarte's arguments.

Just as (this STJ's Section) could not assert that it is not acceptable to assimilate the aforementioned filing order to a verified proof of innocence
https://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/Annulment_request.htm

She is saying that the filing order was 'a verified proof of innocence'