Author Topic: PJ Inspector Ana Saltão convicted of murder following Appeal Court decision.  (Read 5377 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Online Davel

Not be found guilty... Not sure about the law in Portugal, but certainly in the UK, you don't have to prove you are innocent. You are innocent UNTIL proven guilty.

In my opinion it is the same with the McCanns, like it or not they are innocent, until it is proven that they are guilty.

I think the people that keep saying the McCanns have been cleared / aren't being investigated should remember that absence of proof is not proof of absence.
It's evidence of absence but not proof... As I have posted repeatedly... I think it's fairly certain the McCann's are not being investigated
« Last Edit: January 12, 2019, 02:31:58 PM by Davel »
mods can delete posts but...
The moving finger writes and having writ moves on...
nor all thy piety nor wit can lure me back to alter but  a line..nor all thy tears wash away  a word of it

Offline init

It's evidence of absence but not proof... As I have posted repeatedly

Apologies my sentence should actually read the following:


I think the people that keep saying the McCanns have been cleared / aren't being investigated should remember that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

I think though Davel, you are suggesting that the absence of evidence is circumstantial evidence, but not on its own proof of absence?

I disagree with this also, it contributes no evidence whatsoever in my view. For example, if someone is shot, but the bullet casing is removed, and the crime scene cleaned up, this absence of evidence isn't therefore evidence that they didn't get shot.

Offline init

I think it's fairly certain the McCann's are not being investigated

This could well be true, still no reflection of guilt or innocence to the crime. Only evidence of a good or bad investigation. Depending on your viewpoint

Online Davel

This could well be true, still no reflection of guilt or innocence to the crime. Only evidence of a good or bad investigation. Depending on your viewpoint

The fact that neither police force is investigating them.. Is evidence of their innocence... There is lots of evidencevof their innocence.... But proving innocence can be impossible
mods can delete posts but...
The moving finger writes and having writ moves on...
nor all thy piety nor wit can lure me back to alter but  a line..nor all thy tears wash away  a word of it

Online Davel

Apologies my sentence should actually read the following:


I think the people that keep saying the McCanns have been cleared / aren't being investigated should remember that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

I think though Davel, you are suggesting that the absence of evidence is circumstantial evidence, but not on its own proof of absence?

I disagree with this also, it contributes no evidence whatsoever in my view. For example, if someone is shot, but the bullet casing is removed, and the crime scene cleaned up, this absence of evidence isn't therefore evidence that they didn't get shot.

No evidence against someone would suggest  they are innocent and is therefore evidence of innocence....

It's evidence no one was shot but not proof
« Last Edit: January 12, 2019, 02:44:02 PM by Davel »
mods can delete posts but...
The moving finger writes and having writ moves on...
nor all thy piety nor wit can lure me back to alter but  a line..nor all thy tears wash away  a word of it

Offline init

The fact that neither police force is investigating them.. Is evidence of their innocence... There is lots of evidencevof their innocence.... But proving innocence can be impossible

Proving innocence beyond all reasonable doubt is nearly impossible, i completely agree. Which is why in the UK we have the system that we have. The only way you can do this, is if you have a watertight alibi, that shows you to be in a different place at the same time. IMO nothing about the case is watertight.

Also, neither police force investigating them only proves that at this time, neither police force is investigating them. Thats it, that is all it proves.

Until the Police forces find somebody guilty, beyond all reasonable doubt. Then there will always be a lack of proof in this case to prove who committed what crimes, and who didn't commit any...

Online Davel

Proving innocence beyond all reasonable doubt is nearly impossible, i completely agree. Which is why in the UK we have the system that we have. The only way you can do this, is if you have a watertight alibi, that shows you to be in a different place at the same time. IMO nothing about the case is watertight.

Also, neither police force investigating them only proves that at this time, neither police force is investigating them. Thats it, that is all it proves.

Until the Police forces find somebody guilty, beyond all reasonable doubt. Then there will always be a lack of proof in this case to prove who committed what crimes, and who didn't commit any...
You are now talking about lack of proof.... I haven't said there's proof... Proof and evidence are different..
There is no proof of the McCann's innocence but there is evidence..

Even if someone  was found guilty it would not necessarily prove the McCann's innocence
mods can delete posts but...
The moving finger writes and having writ moves on...
nor all thy piety nor wit can lure me back to alter but  a line..nor all thy tears wash away  a word of it

Offline init

No evidence against someone would suggest  they are innocent and is therefore evidence of innocence....

It's evidence no one was shot but not proof

I think that is a flawed viewpoint. No evidence that a particular person commited a crime, is not evidence that that person didn't commit the crime. Evidence that that person could not have commited the crime, for example because said person has no arms and couldn't pull the trigger, or that CCTV footage places that person 300 miles away at the time of the incident... That is evidence, that that person didn't commit the crime.

Online Davel

I think that is a flawed viewpoint. No evidence that a particular person commited a crime, is not evidence that that person didn't commit the crime. Evidence that that person could not have commited the crime, for example because said person has no arms and couldn't pull the trigger, or that CCTV footage places that person 300 miles away at the time of the incident... That is evidence, that that person didn't commit the crime.

No... That's proof that the person didn't commit the crime...
It's not me whose viewpoint is flawed
mods can delete posts but...
The moving finger writes and having writ moves on...
nor all thy piety nor wit can lure me back to alter but  a line..nor all thy tears wash away  a word of it

Offline init

No... That's proof that the person didn't commit the crime...
It's not me whose viewpoint is flawed

No, on it's own it is evidence.

In my opinion, in this complex real world, you can only prove a theory, that is made up of pieces of evidence.

Evidence = evidence
Proof = The theory which ties together multiple bits of evidence.

Online Davel

Perhaps this explains it better... Based on the evidence..   I don't believe in ghosts... The lack of evidence is evidence against their existence... But it is not proof..
So lack of evidence IS evidence if absence
mods can delete posts but...
The moving finger writes and having writ moves on...
nor all thy piety nor wit can lure me back to alter but  a line..nor all thy tears wash away  a word of it

Online Davel

No, on it's own it is evidence.

In my opinion, in this complex real world, you can only prove a theory, that is made up of pieces of evidence.

Evidence = evidence
Proof = The theory which ties together multiple bits of evidence.

If evidence proves something it is proof... So evidence can be proof.... Or evidence may not be proof
mods can delete posts but...
The moving finger writes and having writ moves on...
nor all thy piety nor wit can lure me back to alter but  a line..nor all thy tears wash away  a word of it

Offline init

Perhaps this explains it better... Based on the evidence..   I don't believe in ghosts... The lack of evidence is evidence against their existence... But it is not proof..
So lack of evidence IS evidence if absence

But independant people claim to have seen ghosts, so there is evidence that ghosts exist. You have just concluded that on it's own this evidence is not proof of the existance.

Which is why on its own a single peice of evidence, in the real world, doesnt provide proof one way or the other. Even DNA evidence has to be supported with other evidence.

Online Davel

But independant people claim to have seen ghosts, so there is evidence that ghosts exist. You have just concluded that on it's own this evidence is not proof of the existance.

Which is why on its own a single peice of evidence, in the real world, doesnt provide proof one way or the other. Even DNA evidence has to be supported with other evidence.

ive never said its proof of anything...you constantly change from evidence to proof..

what im saying is I dont beleive in ghosts due to lack of evidence...the lack of evidence sugggests they dont exist...that is fact not opinion..

and i dont believe the mccanns are being investigated because of lack of evidence..

dna on its own can provide proof

« Last Edit: January 12, 2019, 03:58:31 PM by Davel »
mods can delete posts but...
The moving finger writes and having writ moves on...
nor all thy piety nor wit can lure me back to alter but  a line..nor all thy tears wash away  a word of it

Offline init

ive never said its proof of anything...you constantly change from evidence to proof..

what im saying is I dont beleive in ghosts due to lack of evidence...the lack of evidence sugggests they dont exist...that is fact not opinion..

and i dont believe the mccanns are being investigated because of lack of evidence..

dna on its own can provide proof

I didn't say that you did... I said, "You have just concluded that on it's own this evidence is not proof of the existance". Notice that i said, this evidence alone is NOT proof of the existince in your opinion. Not that it is proof of non-existance.

And yes the lack of evidence does suggest either, they don't exist or they are good at covering their tracks.

Your view in the ghost example, is exactly the point i am making in the McCann example. But only the way you have just written it (i.e. suggests they do not exist, and not "is evidence they do not exist)