For Albertini ...

[Chinagirl]

The mistake you make, Albertini, is to assert that there is a difference to the presumption of innocence between the investigative phase and trial phase.  There isn't, which is why neither a suspect (investigation) nor a defendant (trial) ever has to "demonstrate/prove their innocence."  It is the police who rule one in or out during the investigation, not the suspect by proving/disproving his innocence.

[Albertini]

The mistake you make, Albertini, is to assert that there is a difference to the presumption of innocence between the investigative phase and trial phase.  There isn't, which is why neither a suspect (investigation) nor a defendant (trial) ever has to "demonstrate/prove their innocence."  It is the police who rule one in or out during the investigation, not the suspect by proving/disproving his innocence.

Well clearly it isn't a mistake because, as i keep telling you, the phrase was there in the AG report.

If it was a "mistake" with no firm standing, do you really think the phrase would have been contained twice in the final report?

The police usually ask questions such as "where were you on the night of...." the answer they are looking for is for firm evidence to rule the suspect out of the investigation.

In order to do that, in essence, the suspect has to prove their innocence to the events in question.

[Chinagirl]

Police arrest caution (UK):

...(your name), I am arresting you on suspicion of (crime). You do not have to say anything. But it may harm your defence if you do not mention when questioned something which you later rely on in court. Anything you do say may be given in evidence.

My underlining.

[Albertini]

Police arrest caution (UK):

...(your name), I am arresting you on suspicion of (crime). You do not have to say anything. But it may harm your defence if you do not mention when questioned something which you later rely on in court. Anything you do say may be given in evidence.

My underlining.

Sure, but what has a caution got to do with a suspect being ruled out of an investigation?

They either comply with the investigation and "prove their innocence" by ruling themselves out, or they choose to remain silent, as is their right, but remain a suspect until such time as their innocence has been proven or the police have gathered evidence against them.

[Mr Gray]

Sure, but what has a caution got to do with a suspect being ruled out of an investigation?

They either comply with the investigation and "prove their innocence" by ruling themselves out, or they choose to remain silent, as is their right, but remain a suspect until such time as their innocence has been proven or the police have gathered evidence against them.

Albertini, could you tell me what you mean by prove your innocence

[Mr Gray]

its a simple question . You have used  the phrase a million times. what do you think it means.

[Mr Gray]

it appears albertini doesn't know what it means

[Mr Gray]

Sure, but what has a caution got to do with a suspect being ruled out of an investigation?

They either comply with the investigation and "prove their innocence" by ruling themselves out, or they choose to remain silent, as is their right, but remain a suspect until such time as their innocence has been proven or the police have gathered evidence against them.

You say the Mccanns have not proved their innocence  but their arguido status has been removed and SY say they are not suspects..surely this is yet another contradiction in your arguments.

[Albertini]

Albertini, could you tell me what you mean by prove your innocence

Yes, rule themselves out as suspects to the police.

[Albertini]

its a simple question . You have used  the phrase a million times. what do you think it means.

I have told you many times.

You are either terminally stupid or have the memory span of a goldfish.

[Albertini]

it appears albertini doesn't know what it means

It does love, but you must be patient and wait for my reply.

[Albertini]

You say the Mccanns have not proved their innocence  but their arguido status has been removed and SY say they are not suspects..surely this is yet another contradiction in your arguments.

Nope, i didn't say it, the AG report removed their Arguido status AND said they had failed to prove their innocence.

Not only are there no contradictions in my argument, that is the position of the AG of Protugal!

Oh that's right, he's an idiot, isn't he?

 

[Mr Gray]

Yes, rule themselves out as suspects to the police.

and does this then prove their innocence

[Mr Gray]

Nope, i didn't say it, the AG report removed their Arguido status AND said they had failed to prove their innocence.

Not only are there no contradictions in my argument, that is the position of the AG of Protugal!

Oh that's right, he's an idiot, isn't he?

 

I don't think he said what you think he said. wheres his statement in portuguese

[Albertini]

and does this then prove their innocence

To the investigation, yes.