Wandering Off Topic

[Mr Gray]

That someone would be the McCanns' lawyer, in the case they lost at the SC.

you need to read the archiving reprt which criticised the mccanns for not proving their innocence and the SC also for claiming that the archiving report was not proof of innocence...have you read either

[ShiningInLuz]

you need to read the archiving reprt which criticised the mccanns for not proving their innocence and the SC also for claiming that the archiving report was not proof of innocence...have you read either

I know what the debate is about, given the large number of times it has been debated in the past.

[Mr Gray]

I know what the debate is about, given the large number of times it has been debated in the past.

then you will realise the archiving report expected the mccanns to prove their innocence...strange when they hadnt been charged with anything.

[ShiningInLuz]

then you will realise the archiving report expected the mccanns to prove their innocence...strange when they hadnt been charged with anything.

That's not my understanding.

[Mr Gray]

That's not my understanding.

perhaps this will help you understand...why should the mccanns be expected to prove their innocence?

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; the investigation was also disturbed, because said facts remain unclarified.

https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/LEGAL_SUMMARY.htm

[ShiningInLuz]

perhaps this will help you understand...why should the mccanns be expected to prove their innocence?

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; the investigation was also disturbed, because said facts remain unclarified.

https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/LEGAL_SUMMARY.htm

To repeat, that's not my understanding.

Can we move on now?

[Mr Gray]

To repeat, that's not my understanding.

Can we move on now?

as you obviously dont understand even when the facts are placed in front of you...you have no other option....i presume those readng the posts can understand

[ShiningInLuz]

as you obviously dont understand even when the facts are placed in front of you...you have no other option....i presume those readng the posts can understand

I am happy to leave readers to their own interpretation.

Can we move on now?

[G-Unit]

perhaps this will help you understand...why should the mccanns be expected to prove their innocence?

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; the investigation was also disturbed, because said facts remain unclarified.

https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/LEGAL_SUMMARY.htm

In my opinion that wasn't an expression of expectation it was an observation of fact. The facts were;

the McCanns insisted that they were innocent.
the reconstitution could possibly have eliminated them.
it didn't take place so they weren't eliminated.

[Mr Gray]

In my opinion that wasn't an expression of expectation it was an observation of fact. The facts were;

the McCanns insisted that they were innocent.
the reconstitution could possibly have eliminated them.
it didn't take place so they weren't eliminated.

lol...we are talking about elimination...the archiving report claimed they could have proved their innocence...a recon would have done neither imo.

[The General]

I was in fact being polite..
I can assure you I know quite a lot about the evidence in both these cases.
I posted a phd thesis from a portuguese law student on the cipriano case and read the Portuguese judgement on amarals case

Where does your knowledge come from

I understand your confusion; like a cat that gradually becomes self-aware by gazing nonplussed in to a mirror - revelatory realisation. Paradigm shift. Only in this case, another poster has obtained wisdom beyond your comprehension. And I'm going to leave it that way, for fear of the incongruence fusing your consciousness irreparably. Be at peace with the fact that I chose not to encumber you with this wisdom.
Shalom.

[Mr Gray]

I understand your confusion; like a cat that gradually becomes self-aware by gazing nonplussed in to a mirror - revelatory realisation. Paradigm shift. Only in this case, another poster has obtained wisdom beyond your comprehension. And I'm going to leave it that way, for fear of the incongruence fusing your consciousness irreparably. Be at peace with the fact that I chose not to encumber you with this wisdom.
Shalom.

What your posts lack in relevant facts to back up your argument they make up for in their literary beauty... A story... But a well told story

[Angelo222]

In my opinion that wasn't an expression of expectation it was an observation of fact. The facts were;

the McCanns insisted that they were innocent.
the reconstitution could possibly have eliminated them.
it didn't take place so they weren't eliminated.

Anyone with a full and comprehensive knowledge of what took place will know that you are 100% correct.  The archive report merely pointed out that the McCanns had every opportunity to 'demonstrate' their innocence in the disappearance of their eldest child but failed to do so. There was no onus on them to do so but their continuous claims of innocence were not backed up by any evidence despite those claims.

The Supreme Court issued a supplement to their final decision when the McCanns again claimed that they had been cleared. They were never cleared and remain so to this day.

[Angelo222]

lol...we are talking about elimination...the archiving report claimed they could have proved their innocence...a recon would have done neither imo.

I tend to agree but for the entirely different reason that the stories and times would not match thus attracting even more suspicion their way.  It is patently apparent that the group were afraid to partake in a reconstitution of the events for those very reasons.

[Mr Gray]

Anyone with a full and comprehensive knowledge of what took place will know that you are 100% correct.  The archive report merely pointed out that the McCanns had every opportunity to 'demonstrate' their innocence in the disappearance of their eldest child but failed to do so. There was no onus on them to do so but their continuous claims of innocence were not backed up by any evidence despite those claims.

The Supreme Court issued a supplement to their final decision when the McCanns again claimed that they had been cleared. They were never cleared and remain so to this day.

Could you explain why they have to demonstrate innocence and what they haven't been cleatred of since they haven't been charged.  They certainly been cleared of arguido status