For Albertini ...

[Mr Gray]

Oh dear, so much wrong here you really don't know what you're cutting and pasting or indeed what you are talking about.

OJ Simpson was found not guilty in a criminal case. In the eyes of the law he was found to be "innocent" of the charges put before a court.

He has never received one day's punishment for those criminal charges. Therefore he had been deemend innocent under law.

The compensation you speak of derived from a CIVIL case against him, not a criminal one.



the civil case is still a legal case, so legally he was found responsible for the death

do you disagree with Blacks dictionary...

We aren't talking about civil cases, we are talking about criminal cases.

The civil court is still a legal court
If he was innocent why did he have to pay compensation

[Albertini]

You display a complete and utter ignorance of the law.

LOL, says you, you are simply trying to gain your knowledge from cutting and pasting American defence lawyers blogs, and it is evident you cannot understand the out of context bits you copy and paste.

not guilty does not mean innocence. It means that the prosecution has not provided enough proof beyond reasonable doubt that the accused is guilty.

It does in the eyes of the law. Not guilty means you are, under law, innocent of those charges. And double jeopardy means you will never be found guilty of the same charges (apart from the exception previously mentioned)

You make long posts about double jeopardy.. totally irrelevant...

Nope not at all, becuase that is the only mechanism for someone found not guilty to subsequently be found guilty of the same offence.

But you don't understand, that's why.

You agreed with the post that not guilty means 100% innocent...you are 100% wrong

I agreed that not guilty means innocent IN THE EYES OF THE LAW. 100% right

Presumption of innocence does not mean 100% innocent otherwise we could state that the M cCanns are 100% innocent...

They are 100% innocent UNDER LAW.
 

OJ Simpson was found not guilty...is he 100% innocent.. then why did he have to pay millions in compensation to the victims family... the answer is a simple one line sentence.. you may need to ask a friend
You display a complete and utter ignorance of the law

Er... mixing criminal and civil cases highlights your gerneral ignorance.

[Mr Gray]

LOL, says you, you are simply trying to gain your knowledge from cutting and pasting American defence lawyers blogs, and it is evident you cannot understand the out of context bits you copy and paste.

It does in the eyes of the law. Not guilty means you are, under law, innocent of those charges. And double jeopardy means you will never be found guilty of the same charges (apart from the exception previously mentioned)

I agreed that not guilty means innocent IN THE EYES OF THE LAW. 100% right ...100% WRONG

They are 100% innocent UNDER LAW.
 
Er... mixing criminal and civil cases highlights your gerneral ignorance.

I have tried to be polite.
Everyone reading this thread understands that guilty people walk free from court every day.
however if I tried to explain this to my cat he would not understand, you seem to fall into the same intelligence level

[Albertini]

The civil court is still a legal court
If he was innocent why did he have to pay compensation

But no one has been talking about civil cases, because the archiving report (for which this thread is about) was about a criminal investigation not a civil matter

Of course civil law is different, but that's not got a hill of beans to do with what we've been talking about.

Simpson was innocent under law in a criminal case.

[Albertini]

I have tried to be polite.
Everyone reading this thread understands that guilty people walk free from court every day.
however if I tried to explain this to my cat he would not understand, you seem to fall into the same intelligence level

You appear to be all confused, which comes as no surprise,  with all the stuff you've been frantically Googling over the last few pages.

People who commit crimes and have actually done the crime do indeed get found not guilty all the time.

Whether they have actually committed the crime is irrelevent in a legal sense.

The only thing that is relevent is when they are acquitted they are "innocent" under law of those charges.

Whether they really are or arent innocent is actually neither here nor there.

[Mr Gray]

Read this...
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2358815/Barry-George-loses-compensation-bid-wrongly-convicted-Jill-Dandos-murder.html

makes an absolute joke of your 100% innocent claim

you need to present your arguments to Barry georges lawyer... you will make legal history

[Mr Gray]

You appear to be all confused, which comes as no surprise,  with all the stuff you've been frantically Googling over the last few pages.

People who commit crimes and have actually done the crime do indeed get found not guilty all the time.

Whether they have actually committed the crime is irrelevent in a legal sense.

The only thing that is relevent is when they are acquitted they are "innocent" under law of those charges.

Whether they really are or arent innocent is actually neither here nor there.

I cant belive what you have just posted. I must apologise to my cat...he is far more intelligent
Off to work

[Albertini]

Read this...
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2358815/Barry-George-loses-compensation-bid-wrongly-convicted-Jill-Dandos-murder.html

makes an absolute joke of your 100% innocent claim

you need to present your arguments to Barry georges lawyer... you will make legal history

You mean the story i told you about back in July?

This one here:

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=1953.msg63223#msg63223

Which relates to degrees of innocence in relation to compensation for miscarriges of justice. It doesn't change the fact he was acquitted of the charges, despite the degrees of innocence applied in his bid for compensation

[Albertini]

I cant belive what you have just posted. I must apologise to my cat...he is far more intelligent
Off to work

In the eyes of the law it isn't but you cannot see that.

No surprise there then.

[Mr Gray]

You mean the story i told you about back in July?

This one here:

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=1953.msg63223#msg63223

Which relates to degrees of innocence in relation to compensation for miscarriges of justice. It doesn't change the fact he was acquitted of the charges, despite the degrees of innocence applied in his bid for compensation

you now talk about degrees of innocence when you have clearly stated that not guilty means 100% innocent
If not guilty means 100% innocent then Barry George is 100% innocent in law in your eyes. You haven't got a clue

[John]

The UK judges in their wisdom have decided that for better or for worse and in their esteemed opinion that there are different degrees of innocence.

My own view is that this is merely a ruse in order to get out of paying compensation to the wrongly convicted who in many cases like Barry George have been the victim of police and CPS malpractice.

[John]

http://www.jn.pt/Dossies/dossie.aspx?content_id=951290&dossier=O%20caso%20Maddie%20McCann
The instruction judge Pedro Frias not having allowed the MP to read Mr McCann's 18 sms, the MP made an appeal, which was rejected by the Evora tribunal on the 28th of May 2008. I.e nobody read the messages. The unique odd point is that Mr McCann pretended he never got those sms.

Anne's link translates literally as >>

The Court of appeal of Évora has dismissed the action brought by public prosecutors of Portimão that wished to have access to the text messages that Gerry McCann received on your phone at night when daughter Madeleine vanished, the 3 of may of last year. In the order dated 29 April and adopted unanimously, the judges state that "the content of the messages can only be subject to real-time interception, with court permission, not taking place ask the mobile network operators in Portugal the consignment in digital form, the contents of message communications sent and received between certain phonesat a certain past period ". Such a situation, advance "embodies a request about a reality which, from the legal standpoint, can never have occurred, on pain of possible foray into criminal liability, of whom had done or allowed to consummate consumasse \". The judges point out that messages can only be obtained through the prior placement of technical interception devices and recording "what ever lacked evaluation of their legality by the examining magistrate". In the order, which comes after the investigating magistrate not have authorized criminal access of messages as the MP-you can still see that in the context of the disappearance of Madeleine, the judicial police investigates "the possible occurrence of the practice of the crimes of kidnapping, murder, exposure or abandonment of minor and concealment of corpse". In the document it is revealed that Gerry has received 14 written messages on May 2 and on the following day to the disappearance of her daughter only four and the same mobile number, which is not identified.

So what was the content of these messages that were so secret?

Why would anyone who claims to be 100% innocent go to such trouble to deny such messages?

This for me reeks of hypocrisy.

[DCI]

I see Gerry's 14 messages, have increased to 18, in Anne's post.

Also in the data provided by this operator are 14 SMS messages received by the mobile phone of Gerald Patrick McCann, sent by the number 4477850####, however in the first listings obtained by the analysts, referring to the activations of the antennae that serve the area from where Madeleine disappeared, for the 2nd to 4th May, those messages had originated from mobile phone number 4478152####.

No anomaly was found with respect to the operator TMN.

http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/PHONE_TEXTS.htm

[AnneGuedes]

I see Gerry's 14 messages, have increased to 18, in Anne's post.

Also in the data provided by this operator are 14 SMS messages received by the mobile phone of Gerald Patrick McCann, sent by the number 4477850####, however in the first listings obtained by the analysts, referring to the activations of the antennae that serve the area from where Madeleine disappeared, for the 2nd to 4th May, those messages had originated from mobile phone number 4478152####.

No anomaly was found with respect to the operator TMN.

http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/PHONE_TEXTS.htm

In the document it is revealed that Gerry has received 14 written messages on May 2 and on the day following the disappearance of her daughter only 4 and of the same phone number which isn't identified.
I did a simple arithmetical operation.

[Eleanor]

Anne's link translates literally as >>

The Court of appeal of Évora has dismissed the action brought by public prosecutors of Portimão that wished to have access to the text messages that Gerry McCann received on your phone at night when daughter Madeleine vanished, the 3 of may of last year. In the order dated 29 April and adopted unanimously, the judges state that "the content of the messages can only be subject to real-time interception, with court permission, not taking place ask the mobile network operators in Portugal the consignment in digital form, the contents of message communications sent and received between certain phonesat a certain past period ". Such a situation, advance "embodies a request about a reality which, from the legal standpoint, can never have occurred, on pain of possible foray into criminal liability, of whom had done or allowed to consummate consumasse \". The judges point out that messages can only be obtained through the prior placement of technical interception devices and recording "what ever lacked evaluation of their legality by the examining magistrate". In the order, which comes after the investigating magistrate not have authorized criminal access of messages as the MP-you can still see that in the context of the disappearance of Madeleine, the judicial police investigates "the possible occurrence of the practice of the crimes of kidnapping, murder, exposure or abandonment of minor and concealment of corpse". In the document it is revealed that Gerry has received 14 written messages on May 2 and on the following day to the disappearance of her daughter only four and the same mobile number, which is not identified.

So what was the content of these messages that were so secret?

Why would anyone who claims to be 100% innocent go to such trouble to deny such messages?

This for me reeks of hypocrisy.

This isn't hypocrisy.  It is simply the legal difference between intercepting messages as they are received which would require a court order to intercept,  and requesting messages previously sent, without prior authority.