For Albertini ...

[Albertini]

I have already posted this. Correct

So, how is someone then convicted and found guilty of those charges, if they have been found not guilty and acquitted?

[Mr Gray]

So, how is someone then convicted and found guilty of those charges, if they have been found not guilty and acquitted?

they cant be as you have posted...if they committed the crime...they get away with it..they are guilty but the court has been unable to prove the case..it happens

[Albertini]

they cant be as you have posted...if they committed the crime...they get away with it..they are guilty but the court has been unable to prove the case..it happens

So they remain "innocent" until proven guilty under law?

ETA:

And if they have been acquitted they cannot be tried again for the same charges (apart from the exceptions i have mentioned) which means, does it not, that under law they remain "innocent".

Which is what i have been saying all along....

[Mr Gray]

I think we need to understand what we mean by innocent.
Innocent to me means.....did not commit the crime...do you agree

[Albertini]

I think we need to understand what we mean by innocent.
Innocent to me means.....did not commit the crime...do you agree

You will note i have always stated "under law" - not in relation to whether the accused actually committed the crime.

Which is why i said in an earlier post:

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]

You will note i have always stated "under law" - not in relation to whether the accused actually committed the crime.

Which is why i said in an earlier post:

I know you have posted innocent under law...and I asked you to explain what you meant 10 minutes ago but you didn't.

So what you are saying is that someone who is innocent under law may be guilty of the offence

[Eleanor]

I think I've lost the plot.

[Mr Gray]

I think I've lost the plot.

I haven't but it is complex as the law is. Hopefully you will understand in a post or two when albertini answers the question, I think he has to phone a friend

[Albertini]

I know you have posted innocent under law...and I asked you to explain what you meant 10 minutes ago but you didn't.

So what you are saying is that someone who is innocent under law may be guilty of the offence

Absolutely! Of course they can have committed the crime and still be found not guilty, and i have always accepted that, as part of the previous post i pasted.

The original argument was over 100% innocence if they were acquitted in court.

You seemed to think that wasn't the case, but you were off at a tangent because i explained this by saying in a court, once acquitted they are found 100% innocent of those charges under law.

Whether in reality they are 100% "innnocent" of the actual crime committed is irrelevant once a suspect has been acquitted, because under the law there is no provision for then finding someone guilty of the same charges (apart from the double jeopardy exceptions i have stated).

[Albertini]

I haven't but it is complex as the law is. Hopefully you will understand in a post or two when albertini answers the question, I think he has to phone a friend

Not complex at all. The law is unequivocal: innocent until proven guilty. Not guilty = innocent in the eyes of the law (barring the DJ exception)

Haha! You wish i think it's you requiring assistance.

It seems clear to me you have confused "actual innocence" (i.e. did they actually commit the crime) with "legal innocence" determined in a court room.

As you will note i have been referring always to innocence in a court room, not actual innocence.

[Mr Gray]

Absolutely! Of course they can have committed the crime and still be found not guilty.

The original argument was over 100% innocence if they were acquitted in court.

You seemed to think that wasn't the case, but you were off at a tangent because i explained this by saying in a court, once acquitted they are found 100% innocent of those charges under law.

Whether in reality they are 100% "innnocent" of the actual crime committed is irrelevant once a suspect has been acquitted, because under the law there is no provision for then finding someone guilty of the same charges (apart from the double jeopardy exceptions i have stated).

thank you.

So if the Mccanns went to court...all the evidence presented...all the evidence...cross examined..and found not guilty.....

they have not proved their innocence

but albertini thinks that if they had returned to Portugal and carried out the reconstruction they could have proved their innocence

[Mr Gray]

Not complex at all. The law is unequivocal: innocent until proven guilty. Not guilty = innocent in the eyes of the law (barring the DJ exception)

Haha! You wish i think it's you requiring assistance.

It seems clear to me you have confused "actual innocence" (i.e. did they actually commit the crime) with "legal innocence" determined in a court room.

As you will note i have been referring always to innocence in a court room, not actual innocence.

so what innocence was the final report referring to ...actual innocence or innocence in the eyes of the law..please provide supporting evidence with your answer...I don't mind if you copy and paste

[Albertini]

thank you.

So if the Mccanns went to court...all the evidence presented...all the evidence...cross examined..and found not guilty.....

they have not proved their innocence

but albertini thinks that if they had returned to Portugal and carried out the reconstruction they could have proved their innocence

Sorry? You've gone all confused again.

So if the Mccanns went to court...all the evidence presented...all the evidence...cross examined..and found not guilty.....

they have not proved their innocence

Nope, they been proven innocent of those charges in a court. But they haven't gone to court have they?

but albertini thinks that if they had returned to Portugal and carried out the reconstruction they could have proved their innocence

Yes, that's right they could have proven their innocence to the investigation, which is what the AG report was summarising.

It was not summarising a judicial matter and it goes back to the difference between a judicial innocence and an investigative one, which you also don't understand.

You have attempted to insult me throughout this thread when in fact my position has been consistent and correct throughout.

Think it's clear who has embarrassed themselves here....

[Mr Gray]

I think I've lost the plot.

So has albertini

[Albertini]

so what innocence was the final report referring to ...actual innocence or innocence in the eyes of the law..please provide supporting evidence with your answer...I don't mind if you copy and paste

As i have stated many times, it was proving their innocence to the investigation, the phrase i have used most often is "ruling themselves out" as suspects.

Completely different concept and nothing to do with judicial innocence.