Were the McCanns innocent in the eyes of the law?

[ferryman]

The bolded text is a logical fallacy. You are saying;

If a proposition has not been proved, then it cannot be considered true and must therefore be considered false.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance

If I suspect that my neighbour's cat is digging up my flowers but I can't prove it that is not evidence that the cat is innocent. The cat may or may not have committed the offence.

Your link might refer to something such as the theory that Martians inhabit Mars.  Unless humans colonise Mars, we will never know, for sure, whether they do or don't; therefore the theory has not been disproved.

It (your link) is simply not applicable to a judicial process or establishment of a crime.

[Benice]

The non involvement of the arguidos parents of Madeleine in any penally relevant action seems to result from the objective circumstances of them not being inside the apartment when she disappeared, from the normal behaviour that they adopted until said disappearance and afterwards, as can be amply concluded from the witness statements, from the telephone communications analysis and also from the forensics' conclusions, namely the Reports from the FSS and from the National Institute for Legal Medicine.

To this can be added that, in reality, none of the indications that led to their constitution as arguidos was later confirmed or consolidated. If not, let us see: the information concerning a previous alert of the media before the polices was not confirmed, the traces that were marked by the dogs were not ratified in laboratory, and the initial indications from the above transcribed email, better clarified at a later date, ended up being revealed as innocuous.

Even if, hypothetically, one could admit that Gerald and Kate McCann might be responsible over the child's death, it would still have to be explained how, where through, when, with what means, with the help of whom and where to they freed themselves of her body within the restricted time frame that would have been available to them to do so. Their daily routine, until the 3rd of May, had been circumscribed to the narrow borders of the 'Ocean Club' resort and to the beach that lies next to it, unknowing the surrounding terrain and, apart from the English friends that were with them on holiday there, they had no known friends or contacts in Portugal.


all that is evidence of innocence...not proof...but evidence

Agreed.
The following  fact -  being most pertinent IMO.

Quote:

NONE of the indications that led to their constitution as arguidos was later confirmed or consolidated.
End quote

Not 'some' or 'most' or 'many'........ NONE of the indications........

[stephen25000]

Agreed.
The following  fact -  being most pertinent IMO.

Quote:

NONE of the indications that led to their constitution as arguidos was later confirmed or consolidated.
End quote

Not 'some' or 'most' or 'many'........ NONE of the indications........

..and there is absolutely nothing to show abduction.

However, we have the dogs indications, and unlike humans, dogs don't lie. They react to stimuli.

[Mr Gray]

The Mccann's have not been charged with any crime.

They should have been investigated for abandonment as indicated on previous occasions, as per Portuguese Law.

The absence of evidence does not mean a crime hasn't occurred.

The Mccanns accounts of events changed and were not consistent.

No evidence has come to light of abduction.

We have the dogs indications, and that is about that.

a totally jumbled post ignoring the point i am making

[Mr Gray]

so....the statement by the SC court that there is no evidence of innocence is incorrect

[stephen25000]

a totally jumbled post ignoring the point i am making

Not jumbled at all.

[stephen25000]

so....the statement by the SC court that there is no evidence of innocence is incorrect

The Supreme Court judgement goes back to the original shelving of the case.

[G-Unit]

the fact that there is no evidence is evidence of the cats innocence...it doesnt prove the cats innocence

No, I asked you to explain, not to repeat the fallacy.

[G-Unit]

you need to raed a little further....no one is talking about proof of innocence....we are talking about the SC statement taht there is no evidence of innocence

Did you provide the cite I requested showing them saying that?

[Mr Gray]

Did you provide the cite I requested showing them saying that?

yes..


Page 70
...(cf. Jónatas Machado, Freedom of Expression - Constitutional Dimensions, op. cit. pp. 566-7)

And let not be said, too, that the appellants were cleared by the order of filing the criminal proceedings.

In fact, that dispatch was not proclaimed by virtue of the Public Ministry having gained the conviction that the appellants had not committed any crime (cf. art. 277° of the CPP).

The filing, in this case, was decided because it was not possible for Public Ministry to obtain sufficient evidence of the practice of crimes by the appellants (cf. the cited art. 277°-2)

There is, therefore, a remarkable difference, and not merely a semantic one, between the legally admissible grounds of the filing order.

Thus, it does not appear acceptable to consider that the alluded dispatch, based on the insufficiency of evidence, should be treated as evidence of innocence.


it absolutely IS evidence of innocence....but not proof

[Robittybob1]

the fact that there is no evidence is evidence of the cats innocence...it doesnt prove the cats innocence

But didn't the SC really want proof of innocence not just evidence of innocence?   What would have constituted proof of innocence?  Have they set an impossible bar.

[Mr Gray]

But didn't the SC really want proof of innocence not just evidence of innocence?   What would have constituted proof of innocence?  Have they set an impossible bar.

you are missing the point

they said taht the archiving report cannot be taken as EVIDENCE of innocence....that is plainly incorrect

[stephen25000]

But didn't the SC really want proof of innocence not just evidence of innocence?   What would have constituted proof of innocence?  Have they set an impossible bar.

Remind me Rob, what court case was the Supreme Court Judgement based on ?

[jassi]

you are missing the point

they said taht the archiving report cannot be taken as EVIDENCE of innocence....that is plainly incorrect

That is for the court to decide, not you. You merely have an opinion, they have authority

[Robittybob1]

you are missing the point

they said taht the archiving report cannot be taken as EVIDENCE of innocence....that is plainly incorrect

You are right in the translated version it states "evidence of innocence not proof of innocence".

On page 70.
"Thus, it does not appear acceptable to consider that the alluded dispatch, based on the insufficiency of evidence, should be treated as evidence of innocence."
There is evidence of innocence and absolute evidence of innocence and it appears it is the absolute overwhelming evidence of innocence they were looking for.  An impossible bar to hurdle.