Were the McCanns innocent in the eyes of the law?

[Robittybob1]

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

True but they can still be wrong and Davel be correct.

[stephen25000]

True but they can still be wrong and Davel be correct.

So you would trust davel's judgement over the experienced Portuguese Judicial System ???

[Mr Gray]

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

I am pointing out a fact...not an opinion

[stephen25000]

I am pointing out a fact...not an opinion

The only facts of interest are what is in the Portuguese Supreme Court judgement.

Your opinions are biased irrelevances.

[Robittybob1]

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

You can read it as well as I can.  I don't know as yet, that is why I am intending to break it down, but I'm sure it wasn't based on a single court case.

So you would trust davel's judgement over the experienced Portuguese Judicial System ???

Did I say that?  But it is possible.  You would have to agree there is some evidence of innocence even if there is not absolute proof of innocence.  So what did they want?

I am pointing out a fact...not an opinion

And I would have to agree.

The only facts of interest are what is in the Portuguese Supreme Court judgement.

Your opinions are biased irrelevances.

And so are yours.

[Mr Gray]

The only facts of interest are what is in the Portuguese Supreme Court judgement.

Your opinions are biased irrelevances.

you obviously cannot understand simple logic
I am stating a fact

[stephen25000]

You can read it as well as I can.  I don't know as yet, that is why I am intending to break it down, but I'm sure it wasn't based on a single court case.
Did I say that?  But it is possible.  You would have to agree there is some evidence of innocence even if there is not absolute proof of innocence.  So what did they want?
And I would have to agree.
And so are yours.

Yet you reply. %£&)**#

The only judgement you need worry about is that handed down by the Portuguese.

[stephen25000]

you obviously cannot understand simple logic
I am stating a fact

I have read the Portuguese Judgement.

All you wish to do is twist matters to favour the McCann's.

[Mr Gray]

I have read the Portuguese Judgement.

All you wish to do is twist matters to favour the McCann's.

im stating a falsehood tha exists in the document......Im stating a fact which anyone who understands simple logic will realise is a fact. No one yet has been able to correct my logic

[stephen25000]

im stating a falsehood tha exists in the document......Im stating a fact which anyone who understands simple logic will realise is a fact. No one yet has been able to correct my logic

That is your opinion, as an amateur, and as a totally biased McCann backer.

You are not an expert in Portuguese law, just another googler who pretends otherwise.

[jassi]

im stating a falsehood tha exists in the document......Im stating a fact which anyone who understands simple logic will realise is a fact. No one yet has been able to correct my logic

Could be that no one cares. It's what the court says and does that is important.

[Mr Gray]

That is your opinion, as an amateur, and as a totally biased McCann backer.

You are not an expert in Portuguese law, just another googler who pretends otherwise.

its not an opion its a fact

[G-Unit]

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

For accuracy then, the judges did not say;

"there is no evidence of innocence"

they said;

"the alluded dispatch".....couldn't "be treated as evidence of innocence"

Quite a difference in the two, isn't there?

[stephen25000]

its not an opion its a fact

No davel , it isn't.

I suggest you read G-Unit's response in her post following yours, and then have the good grace to admit you got it wrong.

[Mr Gray]

For accuracy then, the judges did not say;

"there is no evidence of innocence"

they said;

"the alluded dispatch".....couldn't "be treated as evidence of innocence"

Quite a difference in the two, isn't there?

no there is not quite a difference...

the despatch give reasons that the mccanns could be innocent and why they were removing the arguido status....that is providing evidence of innocence