Author Topic: Prosecution evidence?  (Read 62162 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

stephen25000

  • Guest
Re: Prosecution evidence?
« Reply #75 on: November 17, 2013, 09:04:58 PM »
Fact...no one has to prove innocence..you have got it back to front

There is no decent evidence against them to prove guilt..the only real fact we have is that Leonor was savagely tortured by the pj

That is your opinion and some of your fellow mccann supporters.

Also, a brief reminder, they have been convicted, do davel what do they have to prove ???

Offline Mr Gray

Re: Prosecution evidence?
« Reply #76 on: November 17, 2013, 09:06:35 PM »
That is your opinion and some of your fellow mccann supporters.

Also, a brief reminder, they have been convicted, do davel what do they have to prove ???

 No that's the rule of law..its not an opinion..you don't seem to understand the basics

stephen25000

  • Guest
Re: Prosecution evidence?
« Reply #77 on: November 17, 2013, 09:13:27 PM »
No that's the rule of law..its not an opinion..you don't seem to understand the basics

They have been found guilty.

It is you who doesn't comprehend.


Offline Mr Gray

Re: Prosecution evidence?
« Reply #78 on: November 17, 2013, 09:16:27 PM »
They have been found guilty.

It is you who doesn't comprehend.

They have been found guilty..is that it
so was Barry George, bham 6 etc ..etc..etc

 I had noticed they were found guilty..what we are discussing is the possibility of a miscarriage of justice..have you read any of the posts

stephen25000

  • Guest
Re: Prosecution evidence?
« Reply #79 on: November 17, 2013, 09:19:58 PM »
They have been found guilty..is that it
so was Barry George, bham 6 etc ..etc..etc

 I had noticed they were found guilty..what we are discussing is the possibility of a miscarriage of justice..have you read any of the posts

No, it is you who believe in a miscarriage of justice, along with some of your fellow supporters.

As has been stated so many times, this is all about trying to attack Amaral, and no more.

Offline Mr Gray

Re: Prosecution evidence?
« Reply #80 on: November 17, 2013, 09:25:50 PM »
No, it is you who believe in a miscarriage of justice, along with some of your fellow supporters.

As has been stated so many times, this is all about trying to attack Amaral, and no more.
 

Stephen..you are adding nothing to the debate... I believe there may have been a miscarriage of justice... I am free to believe what I wish ...There is no real evidence against the Ciprianos... if you have some please let us know

Offline Mr Gray

Re: Prosecution evidence?
« Reply #81 on: November 17, 2013, 09:28:20 PM »
No, it is you who believe in a miscarriage of justice, along with some of your fellow supporters.

As has been stated so many times, this is all about trying to attack Amaral, and no more.

 the title of the thread is prosecution evidence..please stick to the topic

stephen25000

  • Guest
Re: Prosecution evidence?
« Reply #82 on: November 17, 2013, 09:31:23 PM »
 

Stephen..you are adding nothing to the debate... I believe there may have been a miscarriage of justice... I am free to believe what I wish ...There is no real evidence against the Ciprianos... if you have some please let us know


You are not debating, merely giving the classic mccann supporter mantra.

They have been found guilty.




stephen25000

  • Guest
Re: Prosecution evidence?
« Reply #83 on: November 17, 2013, 09:32:28 PM »
the title of the thread is prosecution evidence..please stick to the topic

Why is the prosecution evidence wrong ?

Facts please, no rhetoric.

Offline Mr Gray

Re: Prosecution evidence?
« Reply #84 on: November 17, 2013, 09:34:56 PM »
Why is the prosecution evidence wrong ?

Facts please, no rhetoric.

what prosecution evidence..thats the whole point...do you have a clue what is going on
« Last Edit: November 17, 2013, 09:37:05 PM by davel »

stephen25000

  • Guest
Re: Prosecution evidence?
« Reply #85 on: November 17, 2013, 09:37:53 PM »
what prosecution evidence..thats the whole point

No, that is your view.

Now let's have some facts why the prosecution was wrong.

Offline Mr Gray

Re: Prosecution evidence?
« Reply #86 on: November 17, 2013, 09:39:53 PM »
No, that is your view.

Now let's have some facts why the prosecution was wrong.

 its not my view..this is a fact the John posted...whats your opinion


Investigations conducted by the Judicial Police of Faro coordinated by Gonçalo Amaral did not reach any clear proof against Leonor and João Cipriano - just a theory, a story that the prosecutor José Pinheiro struggled to defend in court.

stephen25000

  • Guest
Re: Prosecution evidence?
« Reply #87 on: November 17, 2013, 09:56:25 PM »
its not my view..this is a fact the John posted...whats your opinion


Investigations conducted by the Judicial Police of Faro coordinated by Gonçalo Amaral did not reach any clear proof against Leonor and João Cipriano - just a theory, a story that the prosecutor José Pinheiro struggled to defend in court.

Read all that.

You as usual are being very selective in what you quote, why not give reference to all the court files on the case /

Now if you really have the courage of your convictions, stop typing , and do something about it.

Offline Mr Gray

Re: Prosecution evidence?
« Reply #88 on: November 17, 2013, 10:01:12 PM »
Read all that.

You as usual are being very selective in what you quote, why not give reference to all the court files on the case /

Now if you really have the courage of your convictions, stop typing , and do something about it.

 All the available court files have been referenced and I have read them..perhaps you should before you make any more of your stupid posts

stephen25000

  • Guest
Re: Prosecution evidence?
« Reply #89 on: November 17, 2013, 10:09:46 PM »
All the available court files have been referenced and I have read them..perhaps you should before you make any more of your stupid posts

 Here we go again with your insults.

No, you just quoted what suited you.

Now if you really believe in what you say, donate funds to the Cipriano's to help them have the verdict overturned.