Do the sceptics simply misunderstand the evidence

[Mr Gray]

The portuguese court seem to have a strange idea about what is a proven fact. In the ciprianio case one of the proven facts was that Joannas blood was found in the apartment...in the fridge I beleive...but the court also sated taht the blood was never dna tested...they just assumed it was joannas and then stated taht as a proven fact...so....the portuguese court seems to have a strange idea about what is a proven fact...that is fact not opinion

[barrier]

As you've avoided answering directly twice it would seem to me that you don't accept it's a certainty that the dog alerted to cadaver, and unless you tell me otherwise I will continue to hold that assumption.

I'm certain its written in a court judgement,my opinion is of no consequence along with all other posters.

[Mr Gray]

I'm certain its written in a court judgement,my opinion is of no consequence along with all other posters.

it is of course...but as i have asked you and you dont know the answer is...what does the court mean by proven facts...because it certainly is not proven...so what does that say about the decalration of the portuguese court

[barrier]

I've just woken up.  A bit of reminding doesn't hurt.

I'll forgive you for that,just don't mention the cricket.

[Vertigo Swirl]

I'm certain its written in a court judgement,my opinion is of no consequence along with all other posters.

that's the third time you've avoided a direct answer.  Your opinion, my opinion, none of it matters, but when you're shooting the breeze as we are on this forum, a little honesty and directness always helps the chat flow more civilly I find.

[Mr Gray]

that's the third time you've avoided a direct answer.  Your opinion, my opinion, none of it matters, but when you're shooting the breeze as we are on this forum, a little honesty and directness always helps the chat flow more civilly I find.

imo...barrier cannot answer because she knows it hs not been proven

[barrier]

it is of course...but as i have asked you and you dont know the answer is...what does the court mean by proven facts...because it certainly is not proven...so what does that say about the decalration of the portuguese court

I don't need to know the answer, its indisputable that's its written down.

[Mr Gray]

I don't need to know the answer, its indisputable that's its written down.

but its not indisputable taht it is correct
In fact it's indisputable  that the court is, wrong

[barrier]

that's the third time you've avoided a direct answer.  Your opinion, my opinion, none of it matters, but when you're shooting the breeze as we are on this forum, a little honesty and directness always helps the chat flow more civilly I find.

I'm a mere poster,I don't presume to know more than any official,the judge clearly wrote down in her court that its an undisputed fact,thats good enough for me.You prove she was wrong in her written judgement.
Or are the pros now admitting that because this is wrong (proven facts) that the whole premise of the court case was wrong and that was why Amaral successfully appealed and had it upheld on appeal in the SC.

[barrier]

but its not indisputable taht it is correct
In fact it's indisputable  that the court is, wrong

So you agree Amaral was right to win his appeal then.

[barrier]

imo...barrier cannot answer because she knows it hs not been proven

 I can say with out fear of contradiction its a proven fact written down.

[Mr Gray]

I can say with out fear of contradiction its a proven fact written down.

But you are unable to say if you agree with it

[Vertigo Swirl]

I'm a mere poster,I don't presume to know more than any official,the judge clearly wrote down in her court that its an undisputed fact,thats good enough for me.You prove she was wrong in her written judgement.
Or are the [ censored word ] now admitting that because this is wrong (proven facts) that the whole premise of the court case was wrong and that was why Amaral successfully appealed and had it upheld on appeal in the SC.

you don't need to know more than the judge or any official to use logic and common sense.   Without tangible evidence of a cadaver, there is no certainty about what the dog alerted to. 

[Robittybob1]

imo...barrier cannot answer because she knows it hs not been proven

Was the problem not so much the judges but the parties to the case allowing that fact to be included in the list of "undisputed facts".

[Mr Gray]

Was the problem not so much the judges but the parties to the case allowing that fact to be included in the list of "undisputed facts".

No... Because it's listed as a proven fact... Which of course it isnt