The mccanns have never claimed to have been declared innocent.

[Mr Gray]

Read it again;

"because sufficient proof had been gathered that the then arguidos did not commit any facts of a criminal relevance"

That's a posh way of saying that the investigation had PROOF that the arguidos committed no crime. If it's proved someone didn't commit a crime they are clearly innocent.

That's your interpretation...there is no claim to a declaration of innocence...

[G-Unit]

That's your interpretation...there is no claim to a declaration of innocence...

My interpretaion agrees with that of the Supreme Court judges who's reply was;

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.
http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/STJ_21_03_2017_Rejected.htm

[Mr Gray]

My interpretaion agrees with that of the Supreme Court judges who's reply was;

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.
http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/STJ_21_03_2017_Rejected.htm

so where does it say the lawyer claims that the McCanns were declared innocent...it doesnt does it. You dont have a cite ...best just admit it.

Insufficiency of evidence id evidence of innocence...but not proof...so the SC are wrong.
people are found not guilty due to insufficiency of evidence

[G-Unit]

so where does it say the lawyer claims that the McCanns were declared innocent...it doesnt does it. You dont have a cite ...best just admit it.

Insufficiency of evidence id evidence of innocence...but not proof...so the SC are wrong.
people are found not guilty due to insufficiency of evidence

You obviously don't understand what their legal arguments meant. I do.

[Mr Gray]

You obviously don't understand what their legal arguments meant. I do.

Its you who doesnt understand..
You have failed to show a cite for "declared innocent".

You have provided a cite that when challenged at the ECHR the SC has found to be wrong on numerous occasions..
You fail to understand absence of evidence is evidence of innocence....another point the SC got wrong..

[pathfinder73]

so where does it say the lawyer claims that the McCanns were declared innocent...it doesnt does it. You dont have a cite ...best just admit it.

Insufficiency of evidence id evidence of innocence...but not proof...so the SC are wrong.
people are found not guilty due to insufficiency of evidence

insufficient evidence is not evidence of innocence because the case is still on-going.

[G-Unit]

so where does it say the lawyer claims that the McCanns were declared innocent...it doesnt does it. You dont have a cite ...best just admit it.

Insufficiency of evidence id evidence of innocence...but not proof...so the SC are wrong.
people are found not guilty due to insufficiency of evidence

The lawyers said the archiving occurred because the investigators gathered proof that the arguidos committed no crime. They got it wrong, as the SC pointed out. The archiving took place because the investigators hadn't got enough evidence to charge the arguidos.

[Mr Gray]

The lawyers said the archiving occurred because the investigators gathered proof that the arguidos committed no crime. They got it wrong, as the SC pointed out. The archiving took place because the investigators hadn't got enough evidence to charge the arguidos.

Semantics...there was insufficient evidence to show the McCann's had committed any crime...so how much evidence was there...we know there was no real evidence...what evidence do you think there was.

The archiving despatch said none of the evidence used to make the McCann's arguido was confirmed...that's none..
Did the SC have evidence the investigation didn't ..laughable

[Mr Gray]

insufficient evidence is not evidence of innocence because the case is still on-going.

It is evidence but not proof

[Miss Taken Identity]

The lawyers said the archiving occurred because the investigators gathered proof that the arguidos committed no crime. They got it wrong, as the SC pointed out. The archiving took place because the investigators hadn't got enough evidence to charge the arguidos.

I think we need to say this slower.

The lawyers (McCanns) said the archiving occurred because the investigators gathered proof that the arguidos (McCanns) committed no crime.

making a claim they are innocent.

SC pointed out. The archiving took place because the investigators hadn't got enough evidence to charge the arguidos.(McCanns)

archived until new evidence either way would enable the arguidos to be charged or off the hook so to speak.

[Mr Gray]

I think we need to say this slower.

The lawyers (McCanns) said the archiving occurred because the investigators gathered proof that the arguidos (McCanns) committed no crime.

making a claim they are innocent.

SC pointed out. The archiving took place because the investigators hadn't got enough evidence to charge the arguidos.(McCanns)

archived until new evidence either way would enable the arguidos to be charged or off the hook so to speak.

The McCanns have every right to claim they are innocent...that's not the title of the thread...they have never claimed to have been declared innocent...that's quite different

[G-Unit]

The McCanns have every right to claim they are innocent...that's not the title of the thread...they have never claimed to have been declared innocent...that's quite different

This is what they're relying on;

Article 277 - Archiving of the investigation

1 - The Public Ministry shall, by dispatch, close the investigation, as soon as it has gathered sufficient evidence that the crime was not confirmed, that the arguido did not practice it in any way or that the procedure is legally inadmissible
http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/Annulment_request.htm

Anyone reading the archiving dispatch can see that no such evidence was quoted. In fact it said at one point;

We believe that the main damage was caused to the McCann arguidos, who lost the possibility to prove what they have protested since they were constituted arguidos: their innocence towards the fateful event;
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/LEGAL_SUMMARY.htm

That clearly contradicts the claim in the annulment request.

[Mr Gray]

This is what they're relying on;

Article 277 - Archiving of the investigation

1 - The Public Ministry shall, by dispatch, close the investigation, as soon as it has gathered sufficient evidence that the crime was not confirmed, that the arguido did not practice it in any way or that the procedure is legally inadmissible
http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/Annulment_request.htm

Anyone reading the archiving dispatch can see that no such evidence was quoted. In fact it said at one point;

We believe that the main damage was caused to the McCann arguidos, who lost the possibility to prove what they have protested since they were constituted arguidos: their innocence towards the fateful event;
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/LEGAL_SUMMARY.htm

That clearly contradicts the claim in the annulment request.

no it doesnt...and thats why you havent quoted the annulment request...so cite for the claim in the annulment request.

where have the mccanns claimed  they have been declared innocent....they havent....your claim is absolute rubbish.

the mcCanns have claimed innocence...as they are entitled to do...but they have not claimed to have been declared innocent...stop promoting lies/untruths

[G-Unit]

no it doesnt...and thats why you havent quoted the annulment request...so cite for the claim in the annulment request.

where have the mccanns claimed  they have been declared innocent....they havent....your claim is absolute rubbish.

the mcCanns have claimed innocence...as they are entitled to do...but they have not claimed to have been declared innocent...stop promoting lies/untruths

In your opinion you are always right, so I see no point in continuing the discussion.

[Mr Gray]

In your opinion you are always right, so I see no point in continuing the discussion.

You can't continue you it because I am right...I've asked many times for a cite and you've always failed....the McCann's have never claimed to have been declared innocent as you have claimed...you are promoting lies/untruths.