Were the McCanns innocent in the eyes of the law?

[Mr Gray]

The McCann's case was that there was evidence they were innocent, the SC said that wasn't true.

There is evidence of innocence in the archiving report
Others here have confused evidence and proof
There is no proof they are innocent but the archiving report supplies evidence of their innocence
The SC is wrong.... fact

[slartibartfast]

There is evidence of innocence in the archiving report
Others here have confused evidence and proof
There is no proof they are innocent but the archiving report supplies evidence of their innocence
The SC is wrong.... fact

Ok, the McCann's said the case was archived because of evidence of their innocence the SC said not.

[Mr Gray]

Ok, the McCann's said the case was archived because of evidence of their innocence the SC said not.

So now you have changed your statement

[Robittybob1]

There is evidence of innocence in the archiving report
Others here have confused evidence and proof
There is no proof they are innocent but the archiving report supplies evidence of their innocence
The SC is wrong.... fact

Rather than giving us your conclusion show us stepwise how you came to that result please.

[Mr Gray]

Rather than giving us your conclusion show us stepwise how you came to that result please.

first you ave to understand what evidence means
Then read the archiving despatch
The fact that there was no real evidence against them is evidence of innocence

[Robittybob1]

first you ave to understand what evidence means
Then read the archiving despatch
The fact that there was no real evidence against them is evidence of innocence

That is one way of looking at it.

[Mr Gray]

That is one way of looking at it.

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

[G-Unit]

first you ave to understand what evidence means
Then read the archiving despatch
The fact that there was no real evidence against them is evidence of innocence

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.




 

[Mr Gray]

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.

i am not saying this......you talk of logic but you cannot grasp simple logic

the fact that that there is no real evidence against teh mccanns is evidence of their innocence.....I am not saying they are innocent...it really is simple but you cannot seem to grasp it

[G-Unit]

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

There are quite a few assumptions in there.

1. As no-one knows what time Madeleine disappeared how can it be said that the parents were not present?
2. The fact that the FSS were unable to find evidence where the dogs alerted doesn't mean the dogs were wrong.
3. Being unable to show how events happened doesn't mean they didn't happen.
4. Because no evidence of friends or contacts in Portugal was found doesn't mean there were none.

[stephen25000]

From the Supreme Court judgement.

‘The archiving of the case was determined by the fact that public prosecutors hadn’t managed to obtain sufficient evidence of the practice of crimes by the appellants.'

‘There is therefore a significant, and not merely a semantic difference, between the legally admissible foundations of the archive ruling.'

‘It doesn’t therefore seem acceptable that the ruling, based on the insufficiency of evidence, should be equated to proof of innocence.’

[G-Unit]

i am not saying this......you talk of logic but you cannot grasp simple logic

the fact that that there is no real evidence against teh mccanns is evidence of their innocence.....I am not saying they are innocent...it really is simple but you cannot seem to grasp it

There was no real evidence against my neighbour's cat. How can that be seen as evidence of the cat's innocence? Please explain?

[Mr Gray]

There was no real evidence against my neighbour's cat. How can that be seen as evidence of the cat's innocence? Please explain?

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

[Mr Gray]

From the Supreme Court judgement.

‘The archiving of the case was determined by the fact that public prosecutors hadn’t managed to obtain sufficient evidence of the practice of crimes by the appellants.'

‘There is therefore a significant, and not merely a semantic difference, between the legally admissible foundations of the archive ruling.'

‘It doesn’t therefore seem acceptable that the ruling, based on the insufficiency of evidence, should be equated to proof of innocence.’

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

[stephen25000]

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

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.