Errr no.
A proven fact is only a proven fact when it has proven a fact which factually fits in with the version of the facts you are promoting.
If a proven fact does not prove a fact which is necessary to factually fit in with the version of the facts you are promoting then it is not a proven fact and is only an opinion.
Simples.
Seeing as some people appear keen to promote the damage/defamation judge as having somehow proven that what she quoted from the files has somehow been proven, I'll repost this here:
Proven Facts in the Civil Trial: English Translation, 21 January 2015
Articles 27 and 28 –
The answer to the question faces, firstly, the problem of dichotomy between "facts that have been ascertained in the inquiry" and "facts that are equally part of the inquiry". If one understood as facts that have been ascertained in the investigation those that, with rigour and according to procedural-penal dogmatism, resulted from the investigation, it is believed that only one would deserve that qualification – the disappearance of Madeleine MacCann. Everything that is part of the investigation, apart from that fact, is indicia, means of evidence, means of obtaining evidence and theses or hypotheses of fact, which is normal for an inquiry that has been archived due to a lack of evidence. Thus it is understood that, when one places side by side "facts that have been ascertained in the inquiry" and those that "are part of the inquiry" one is referring to the means of obtaining evidence, the means of evidence and indicia that make up the investigation itself and that are documented in the inquiry. Thus, from the reading of the book and the viewing of the documentary it is concluded that defendant Gonçalo Amaral uses, in his affirmations, mostly facts that did indeed take place and are documented in the inquiry (in the version that is available in this process). Some of the facts that were used are not complete (for example, from the report about Martin Smith's deposition – in the inquiry, page 1606 of Volume 6) – the part where the witness states that the person that he saw carrying a child in his arms did not do it "in a comfortable manner, showing a lack of habitude") and others that are contained in the book and in the documentary have not been included in the inquiry (v.g. the instructions that he gave to the picket when he heard about the disappearance – page 37 of the book; the statement attributed to the parents that the apartment showed break-in signs – page 44 of the book; Kate MacCann's discomfort over the speed of the car – page 55 of the book; the hypothesis of a reconstruction of events discussed in mid-May – page 94 of the book; the "informal" identification of Robert Murat by Jane Tanner – page 108).
http://www.mccannfiles.com/id505.html(I'm not sure that these were actually the final proven facts or whether they were her assessment as at January.)
