Innocent Until Proven Guilty

This is a term or phrase often banded about a bit so I wondered if it was worth having a debate about what it means exactly.

People get arrested and their freedom taken away to help police with their enquires and assist an investigation into a crime.

People get remanded in custody - their freedom taken away pending trial. So innocent does not mean you cannot be locked up before being found guilty.

Dr Shipman was as guilty before his trail as he was after the sentence was passed - the only difference is that it his guilt became official which allowed him to be incarcerated at HMP.

So as proud as we may be as a nation that in this country that you are innocent until proven guilty - what advantage is that to anyone? Does it protect innocent people from injustice?? No! There are many many cases that show a mis-carriage of justice.

Does it protect the guilty? - in some cases yes if, for one reason or another such as when the evidence in the original Stephen Lawrence investigation, the investigation is not undertaken thoroughly or evidence protected and presented objectively.

So if innocent people can get locked away and guilty people walk free - what relevance is the term - Innocent Until Proven Guilty??

It describes a protocol for the due process of administering Justice, that's all.

Confers rights upon a suspect and attempts to ensure a proper sequence of events takes place leading up to the conclusion of any trial.

But the system we have, however good and well-regarded is flawed. All Judicial systems are.

So the fact that someone who has not been convicted is presumed to be innocent is constrained to "within the due process of Law" as it stands.

Of course, Law itself is not just Statute Law but also Common Law - especially in the latter case, the Law arises in its own way from the expectations of the man in the street. It's for us and it's by us. So it needs updating in the light of changing standards, changing times and upon the discovery of flaws.

By extension, that means that there is no reason at all why a person or persons cannot draw their own conclusions about the potential guilt of others - but of course they too are constrained in how they present that view.

None of it means that someone actually is not guilty if they have not been successfully tried. It means they have got away with it due to insufficient or poorly presented evidence, or it means the process has failed, or it means the law is an ass.

Finally, just because evidence has not been found does not mean it does not exist.

That's my "starter for ten"

The End Is Nigh wrote:It describes a protocol for the due process of administering Justice, that's all.

Confers rights upon a suspect and attempts to ensure a proper sequence of events takes place leading up to the conclusion of any trial.

But the system we have, however good and well-regarded is flawed. All Judicial systems are.

So the fact that someone who has not been convicted is presumed to be innocent is constrained to "within the due process of Law" as it stands.

Of course, Law itself is not just Statute Law but also Common Law - especially in the latter case, the Law arises in its own way from the expectations of the man in the street. It's for us and it's by us. So it needs updating in the light of changing standards, changing times and upon the discovery of flaws.

By extension, that means that there is no reason at all why a person or persons cannot draw their own conclusions about the potential guilt of others - but of course they too are constrained in how they present that view.

None of it means that someone actually is not guilty if they have not been successfully tried. It means they have got away with it due to insufficient or poorly presented evidence, or it means the process has failed, or it means the law is an ass.

Finally, just because evidence has not been found does not mean it does not exist.

That's my "starter for ten"

Very conclusive starter methinks TEIN!

Did not Gerry make reference to 'the process' in his famous 'No Evidence' speech on the steps of the Court House??

Oh yes.

He researched well and briefed his cohorts accordingly, it seems.

The End Is Nigh wrote:It describes a protocol for the due process of administering Justice, that's all.

Confers rights upon a suspect and attempts to ensure a proper sequence of events takes place leading up to the conclusion of any trial.

But the system we have, however good and well-regarded is flawed. All Judicial systems are.

So the fact that someone who has not been convicted is presumed to be innocent is constrained to "within the due process of Law" as it stands.

Of course, Law itself is not just Statute Law but also Common Law - especially in the latter case, the Law arises in its own way from the expectations of the man in the street. It's for us and it's by us. So it needs updating in the light of changing standards, changing times and upon the discovery of flaws.

By extension, that means that there is no reason at all why a person or persons cannot draw their own conclusions about the potential guilt of others - but of course they too are constrained in how they present that view.

None of it means that someone actually is not guilty if they have not been successfully tried. It means they have got away with it due to insufficient or poorly presented evidence, or it means the process has failed, or it means the law is an ass.

Finally, just because evidence has not been found does not mean it does not exist.

That's my "starter for ten"

That'll do me.

It was no more than a Summative Overview ...................

The End Is Nigh wrote:Oh yes.

He researched well and briefed his cohorts accordingly, it seems.

So - taking the Dr Shipman case as an example again - evidence of his guilt existed before that evidence was discovered; and once it was dicovered it continued to exist before the due process was completed - non?

Soooo - just because a process has not been completed does not mean that there is no evidence.

Madeleine's case was -and remains - shelved!

I know a number of policemen (not in a professional capacity ) and tehy are aware of many guilty people walking the streets. They are frustrated because they have some evidence of guilt just not ENOUGH of it to go to the CPS. This involves murderers and rapists.

The important thing to understand is (with a number of them) when they are sure of it) they won't stop looking into the case even when off duty. As I imagine the Portuguese police in the Madeleine McCann case are probably doing.

NoStone wrote:This is a term or phrase often banded about a bit so I wondered if it was worth having a debate about what it means exactly.

People get arrested and their freedom taken away to help police with their enquires and assist an investigation into a crime.

People get remanded in custody - their freedom taken away pending trial. So innocent does not mean you cannot be locked up before being found guilty.

Dr Shipman was as guilty before his trail as he was after the sentence was passed - the only difference is that it his guilt became official which allowed him to be incarcerated at HMP.

So as proud as we may be as a nation that in this country that you are innocent until proven guilty - what advantage is that to anyone? Does it protect innocent people from injustice?? No! There are many many cases that show a mis-carriage of justice.

Does it protect the guilty? - in some cases yes if, for one reason or another such as when the evidence in the original Stephen Lawrence investigation, the investigation is not undertaken thoroughly or evidence protected and presented objectively.

So if innocent people can get locked away and guilty people walk free - what relevance is the term - Innocent Until Proven Guilty??

I believe the term is "presumed innocent" not "innocent".

I also believe it is incumbent on all of us to respect that presumption even if we do not believe it or might be working to overturn it.

The End Is Nigh wrote:It describes a protocol for the due process of administering Justice, that's all.

Confers rights upon a suspect and attempts to ensure a proper sequence of events takes place leading up to the conclusion of any trial.

But the system we have, however good and well-regarded is flawed. All Judicial systems are.

So the fact that someone who has not been convicted is presumed to be innocent is constrained to "within the due process of Law" as it stands.

Of course, Law itself is not just Statute Law but also Common Law - especially in the latter case, the Law arises in its own way from the expectations of the man in the street. It's for us and it's by us. So it needs updating in the light of changing standards, changing times and upon the discovery of flaws.

By extension, that means that there is no reason at all why a person or persons cannot draw their own conclusions about the potential guilt of others - but of course they too are constrained in how they present that view.

None of it means that someone actually is not guilty if they have not been successfully tried. It means they have got away with it due to insufficient or poorly presented evidence, or it means the process has failed, or it means the law is an ass.

Finally, just because evidence has not been found does not mean it does not exist.

That's my "starter for ten"

Your comments are very valid but it should be remembered by all that there is neither presumption of innocence or guilt. Your emphasis on them not being actually guilty if not tried. Either is possible.

It should also be remembered that in this particular case the two individuals have been thoroughly investigated by Portuguese legal authorities and there was no indication of them having done any crime at all. Not insufficient indication. Perhaps you think the PT legal authorities are asses?

And of course the corollary to your claim about evidence not having been found is of course tht it actually might not exist. Both are perfectly possible.

platinum wrote:

NoStone wrote:This is a term or phrase often banded about a bit so I wondered if it was worth having a debate about what it means exactly.

People get arrested and their freedom taken away to help police with their enquires and assist an investigation into a crime.

People get remanded in custody - their freedom taken away pending trial. So innocent does not mean you cannot be locked up before being found guilty.

Dr Shipman was as guilty before his trail as he was after the sentence was passed - the only difference is that it his guilt became official which allowed him to be incarcerated at HMP.

So as proud as we may be as a nation that in this country that you are innocent until proven guilty - what advantage is that to anyone? Does it protect innocent people from injustice?? No! There are many many cases that show a mis-carriage of justice.

Does it protect the guilty? - in some cases yes if, for one reason or another such as when the evidence in the original Stephen Lawrence investigation, the investigation is not undertaken thoroughly or evidence protected and presented objectively.

So if innocent people can get locked away and guilty people walk free - what relevance is the term - Innocent Until Proven Guilty??

I believe the term is "presumed innocent" not "innocent".

I also believe it is incumbent on all of us to respect that presumption even if we do not believe it or might be working to overturn it.

At what point did the presumtion of Dr Shipman's innocence cease? Was it prior to the trial when the police, members of the public, the CPS presumed he was guilty? I believe it is incumbannt on us all to ensure justice for all - including innocent 3 year old children!

platinum wrote:

Your comments are very valid but it should be remembered by all that there is neither presumption of innocence or guilt. Your emphasis on them not being actually guilty if not tried. Either is possible.

It should also be remembered that in this particular case the two individuals have been thoroughly investigated by Portuguese legal authorities and there was no indication of them having done any crime at all. Not insufficient indication. Perhaps you think the PT legal authorities are asses?

And of course the corollary to your claim about evidence not having been found is of course tht it actually might not exist. Both are perfectly possible.

I've never hear of a Presumption of Guilt.

Which two individuals are you referring to? Personally, I think there are rather more than just two miscreants in the farrago we are discussing.

NoStone wrote:

platinum wrote:

NoStone wrote:This is a term or phrase often banded about a bit so I wondered if it was worth having a debate about what it means exactly.

People get arrested and their freedom taken away to help police with their enquires and assist an investigation into a crime.

People get remanded in custody - their freedom taken away pending trial. So innocent does not mean you cannot be locked up before being found guilty.

Dr Shipman was as guilty before his trail as he was after the sentence was passed - the only difference is that it his guilt became official which allowed him to be incarcerated at HMP.

So as proud as we may be as a nation that in this country that you are innocent until proven guilty - what advantage is that to anyone? Does it protect innocent people from injustice?? No! There are many many cases that show a mis-carriage of justice.

Does it protect the guilty? - in some cases yes if, for one reason or another such as when the evidence in the original Stephen Lawrence investigation, the investigation is not undertaken thoroughly or evidence protected and presented objectively.

So if innocent people can get locked away and guilty people walk free - what relevance is the term - Innocent Until Proven Guilty??

I believe the term is "presumed innocent" not "innocent".

I also believe it is incumbent on all of us to respect that presumption even if we do not believe it or might be working to overturn it.

At what point did the presumtion of Dr Shipman's innocence cease? Was it prior to the trial when the police, members of the public, the CPS presumed he was guilty? I believe it is incumbannt on us all to ensure justice for all - including innocent 3 year old children!

It ceased for everyone when he was convicted. I agree that it is incumbent on us all to ensure justice for all but through the courts and not internet trials which are wholly invalid for many, many reasons.

The End Is Nigh wrote:

platinum wrote:

Your comments are very valid but it should be remembered by all that there is neither presumption of innocence or guilt. Your emphasis on them not being actually guilty if not tried. Either is possible.

It should also be remembered that in this particular case the two individuals have been thoroughly investigated by Portuguese legal authorities and there was no indication of them having done any crime at all. Not insufficient indication. Perhaps you think the PT legal authorities are asses?

And of course the corollary to your claim about evidence not having been found is of course tht it actually might not exist. Both are perfectly possible.

I've never hear of a Presumption of Guilt.

Which two individuals are you referring to? Personally, I think there are rather more than just two miscreants in the farrago we are discussing.

I did not intend to coin (as you seem to believe I did) the term 'presumption of guilt'. I certainly did not use that term. My reference was to the fact that you were emphasising the possibility of guilt over that of innocence.

Apologies, that should have referred to the three individuals. The three arguidos in this particular case.

platinum wrote:

NoStone wrote:

platinum wrote:

NoStone wrote:This is a term or phrase often banded about a bit so I wondered if it was worth having a debate about what it means exactly.

People get arrested and their freedom taken away to help police with their enquires and assist an investigation into a crime.

People get remanded in custody - their freedom taken away pending trial. So innocent does not mean you cannot be locked up before being found guilty.

Dr Shipman was as guilty before his trail as he was after the sentence was passed - the only difference is that it his guilt became official which allowed him to be incarcerated at HMP.

So as proud as we may be as a nation that in this country that you are innocent until proven guilty - what advantage is that to anyone? Does it protect innocent people from injustice?? No! There are many many cases that show a mis-carriage of justice.

Does it protect the guilty? - in some cases yes if, for one reason or another such as when the evidence in the original Stephen Lawrence investigation, the investigation is not undertaken thoroughly or evidence protected and presented objectively.

So if innocent people can get locked away and guilty people walk free - what relevance is the term - Innocent Until Proven Guilty??

I believe the term is "presumed innocent" not "innocent".

I also believe it is incumbent on all of us to respect that presumption even if we do not believe it or might be working to overturn it.

At what point did the presumtion of Dr Shipman's innocence cease? Was it prior to the trial when the police, members of the public, the CPS presumed he was guilty? I believe it is incumbannt on us all to ensure justice for all - including innocent 3 year old children!

It ceased for everyone when he was convicted. I agree that it is incumbent on us all to ensure justice for all but through the courts and not internet trials which are wholly invalid for many, many reasons.

Internet trial? What internet trial??

NoStone wrote:

platinum wrote:

NoStone wrote:

platinum wrote:

NoStone wrote:This is a term or phrase often banded about a bit so I wondered if it was worth having a debate about what it means exactly.

People get arrested and their freedom taken away to help police with their enquires and assist an investigation into a crime.

People get remanded in custody - their freedom taken away pending trial. So innocent does not mean you cannot be locked up before being found guilty.

Dr Shipman was as guilty before his trail as he was after the sentence was passed - the only difference is that it his guilt became official which allowed him to be incarcerated at HMP.

So as proud as we may be as a nation that in this country that you are innocent until proven guilty - what advantage is that to anyone? Does it protect innocent people from injustice?? No! There are many many cases that show a mis-carriage of justice.

Does it protect the guilty? - in some cases yes if, for one reason or another such as when the evidence in the original Stephen Lawrence investigation, the investigation is not undertaken thoroughly or evidence protected and presented objectively.

So if innocent people can get locked away and guilty people walk free - what relevance is the term - Innocent Until Proven Guilty??

I believe the term is "presumed innocent" not "innocent".

I also believe it is incumbent on all of us to respect that presumption even if we do not believe it or might be working to overturn it.

At what point did the presumtion of Dr Shipman's innocence cease? Was it prior to the trial when the police, members of the public, the CPS presumed he was guilty? I believe it is incumbannt on us all to ensure justice for all - including innocent 3 year old children!

It ceased for everyone when he was convicted. I agree that it is incumbent on us all to ensure justice for all but through the courts and not internet trials which are wholly invalid for many, many reasons.

Internet trial? What internet trial??

The ongoing internet trial on forums and social media based on the largely spurious assumption that the public is in possession of all the facts. Odd you should have missed it.

Whether someone is found guilty or not is often based upon a lot more than whatever the evidence suggests. A lack of evidence does not equal innocence.

The Criminal Justice System is full of biases from the time someone first enters.
It is a fact that within prison there is an over-representation of ethnic minorities, there is also an over-representation of people with learning disabilities or mental health problems. Some might also argue that there is an over-representation of men within the prison system however what we do know is that upon being accused of a crime if you are from a lower socio-economic bracket you are more likely to receive a harsher prison sentence. Studies have shown that it boils down to silly things often like accent or appearance even if the all the 'evidence' presented is equivalent.

If you have the right look, the right amount of money and the right amount of connections it is possible to get yourself 'off' any crime.
This is why the general public know that the 'law is an ass'. However, as the general public the Governor's of our country place the expectation on us to make daily judgement as to our navigation of the law as ignorance is no defence.

It is with this knowledge of the law that we can make assumptions and pass judgement on peoples actions.

I therefore believe that a much more important presumption is one of equality before the law.
If see that Person A> has gone to prison and been charged with child neglect for leaving their child alone for less than an hour
then it is reasonable to suggest that someone who went on a piss up leaving their children alone night after night in a vulnerable situation resulting in something happening to one of them is guilty by equivalence.

For starters we know the Mccann's were guilty of neglect, they will admit it themselves.

Secondly this whole forum is full of evidence suggesting the Mccann's have not been totally forthcoming.
A lot of what they have said does not make logical sense. There are definite, lies, mistruths and dissimulation.

This whole debate reminds me of the classic proposition 'If a tree falls in a forest and nobody is there to hear it, does it make a sound?'

The Mccann's would argue no, as there was no evidence due to nobody being there to hear it!
(They might even argue that there is no evidence to suggest a forest!)
However, we all know that there are whole bodies of research and case studies which lead us to say that in all likelihood that yes it did make a sound.

Goncarlo did not fall off the last banana boat. He went through a lot of training and development to get to where he was based upon years of experience. The British Police which helped the Portugese further develop the 'accident' and 'coverup' theory also are basing their hypothesis on logic and case study founded deeply within hard science, forensics as well as economics and psychology.

The logical man knows that the likelihood of the way things happening the way the Mccann's purport is so low... this is why they are quite rightly under suspicion and their patterns of behaviour continue to draw attention to the fallacies which they present. This is why the 'presumption of innocence' is only applicable to a court setting and also the reason why it is great that there are so many people in the world passionate about many different things raising public awareness of failures in logic and legal injustices which they hope one day will be righted.

platinum wrote:

I did not intend to coin (as you seem to believe I did) the term 'presumption of guilt'. I certainly did not use that term. My reference was to the fact that you were emphasising the possibility of guilt over that of innocence.

Apologies, that should have referred to the three individuals. The three arguidos in this particular case.

So, you mention the McCanns (By which I presume you mean Kate Healy and Gerry McCann) and now a third person.

Who is this third person?

I myself am wholly unclear to this day who may , or may not, be implicated in this farrago, but I suspect it is not confined to two, or even three, individuals.

So I''d be greatly obliged to know why you think Healy and McCann plus one other are at the forefront.

Loopdaloop wrote:Whether someone is found guilty or not is often based upon a lot more than whatever the evidence suggests. A lack of evidence does not equal innocence.

The Criminal Justice System is full of biases from the time someone first enters.
It is a fact that within prison there is an over-representation of ethnic minorities, there is also an over-representation of people with learning disabilities or mental health problems. Some might also argue that there is an over-representation of men within the prison system however what we do know is that upon being accused of a crime if you are from a lower socio-economic bracket you are more likely to receive a harsher prison sentence. Studies have shown that it boils down to silly things often like accent or appearance even if the all the 'evidence' presented is equivalent.

If you have the right look, the right amount of money and the right amount of connections it is possible to get yourself 'off' any crime.
This is why the general public know that the 'law is an ass'. However, as the general public the Governor's of our country place the expectation on us to make daily judgement as to our navigation of the law as ignorance is no defence.

It is with this knowledge of the law that we can make assumptions and pass judgement on peoples actions.

I therefore believe that a much more important presumption is one of equality before the law.
If see that Person A> has gone to prison and been charged with child neglect for leaving their child alone for less than an hour
then it is reasonable to suggest that someone who went on a piss up leaving their children alone night after night in a vulnerable situation resulting in something happening to one of them is guilty by equivalence.

For starters we know the Mccann's were guilty of neglect, they will admit it themselves.

Secondly this whole forum is full of evidence suggesting the Mccann's have not been totally forthcoming.
A lot of what they have said does not make logical sense. There are definite, lies, mistruths and dissimulation.

This whole debate reminds me of the classic proposition 'If a tree falls in a forest and nobody is there to hear it, does it make a sound?'

The Mccann's would argue no, as there was no evidence due to nobody being there to hear it!
(They might even argue that there is no evidence to suggest a forest!)
However, we all know that there are whole bodies of research and case studies which lead us to say that in all likelihood that yes it did make a sound.

Goncarlo did not fall off the last banana boat. He went through a lot of training and development to get to where he was based upon years of experience. The British Police which helped the Portugese further develop the 'accident' and 'coverup' theory also are basing their hypothesis on logic and case study founded deeply within hard science, forensics as well as economics and psychology.

The logical man knows that the likelihood of the way things happening the way the Mccann's purport is so low... this is why they are quite rightly under suspicion and their patterns of behaviour continue to draw attention to the fallacies which they present. This is why the 'presumption of innocence' is only applicable to a court setting and also the reason why it is great that there are so many people in the world passionate about many different things raising public awareness of failures in logic and legal injustices which they hope one day will be righted.

Very well put.

The End Is Nigh wrote:

platinum wrote:

I did not intend to coin (as you seem to believe I did) the term 'presumption of guilt'. I certainly did not use that term. My reference was to the fact that you were emphasising the possibility of guilt over that of innocence.

Apologies, that should have referred to the three individuals. The three arguidos in this particular case.

So, you mention the McCanns (By which I presume you mean Kate Healy and Gerry McCann) and now a third person.

Who is this third person?

I myself am wholly unclear to this day who may , or may not, be implicated in this farrago, but I suspect it is not confined to two, or even three, individuals.

So I''d be greatly obliged to know why you think Healy and McCann plus one other are at the forefront.

Actually I did not mention Gerry and Kate McCann specifically as you seem to claim. I mentioned the three arguidos.

If you are unaware as to who the third arguido was I suggest you do some basic research. It suggests either serious ignorance of basic facts or... Actually, I am not sure of an alternative.

I have confined my comments to those who the Police studied in the files. Perhaps I am wrong to follow the lead of the PT Police (especially as you implied they may be asses earlier) in concentrating on these three individuals but speculation and suspicion are not my plan. I prefer solid fact.

Loopdaloop wrote:Whether someone is found guilty or not is often based upon a lot more than whatever the evidence suggests. A lack of evidence does not equal innocence.

The Criminal Justice System is full of biases from the time someone first enters.
It is a fact that within prison there is an over-representation of ethnic minorities, there is also an over-representation of people with learning disabilities or mental health problems. Some might also argue that there is an over-representation of men within the prison system however what we do know is that upon being accused of a crime if you are from a lower socio-economic bracket you are more likely to receive a harsher prison sentence. Studies have shown that it boils down to silly things often like accent or appearance even if the all the 'evidence' presented is equivalent.

If you have the right look, the right amount of money and the right amount of connections it is possible to get yourself 'off' any crime.
This is why the general public know that the 'law is an ass'. However, as the general public the Governor's of our country place the expectation on us to make daily judgement as to our navigation of the law as ignorance is no defence.

It is with this knowledge of the law that we can make assumptions and pass judgement on peoples actions.

I therefore believe that a much more important presumption is one of equality before the law.
If see that Person A> has gone to prison and been charged with child neglect for leaving their child alone for less than an hour
then it is reasonable to suggest that someone who went on a piss up leaving their children alone night after night in a vulnerable situation resulting in something happening to one of them is guilty by equivalence.

For starters we know the Mccann's were guilty of neglect, they will admit it themselves.

Secondly this whole forum is full of evidence suggesting the Mccann's have not been totally forthcoming.
A lot of what they have said does not make logical sense. There are definite, lies, mistruths and dissimulation.

This whole debate reminds me of the classic proposition 'If a tree falls in a forest and nobody is there to hear it, does it make a sound?'

The Mccann's would argue no, as there was no evidence due to nobody being there to hear it!
(They might even argue that there is no evidence to suggest a forest!)
However, we all know that there are whole bodies of research and case studies which lead us to say that in all likelihood that yes it did make a sound.

Goncarlo did not fall off the last banana boat. He went through a lot of training and development to get to where he was based upon years of experience. The British Police which helped the Portugese further develop the 'accident' and 'coverup' theory also are basing their hypothesis on logic and case study founded deeply within hard science, forensics as well as economics and psychology.

The logical man knows that the likelihood of the way things happening the way the Mccann's purport is so low... this is why they are quite rightly under suspicion and their patterns of behaviour continue to draw attention to the fallacies which they present. This is why the 'presumption of innocence' is only applicable to a court setting and also the reason why it is great that there are so many people in the world passionate about many different things raising public awareness of failures in logic and legal injustices which they hope one day will be righted.

Your speculation as to what the McCanns might think or say largely destroys what might have been a valid argument.

So, you can't (or won't) answer the question.

Odd that you want all and sundry to respond to your own questions yet I've repeatedly asked you (at least six times now) on various Threads why you keep mentioning "the McCanns" and haven't had a single response.

Anyway, you have now clarified that by "the McCanns" you mean Kate Healy and Gerry McCann. Why do you call her Kate McCann???

The End Is Nigh wrote:So, you can't (or won't) answer the question.

Odd that you want all and sundry to respond to your own questions yet I've repeatedly asked you (at least six times now) on various Threads why you keep mentioning "the McCanns" and haven;t had a single response.

What question have I failed to answer. I am not into speculating about other people. I have followed the lead of the PT Police when I have suggested that those under suspicion were the three arguidos.

If you mean I won't answer the question as to who the third arguido was. Well. No, I won't. Because I think if someone has to ask that it is very very significant.

The question I have failed to get an answer to is why you keep mentioning "the McCanns"

Who exactly are "the McCanns"?

Do you mean Kate Healy and Gerry McCann?

It's not difficult.

platinum wrote:

The End Is Nigh wrote:

platinum wrote:

Your comments are very valid but it should be remembered by all that there is neither presumption of innocence or guilt. Your emphasis on them not being actually guilty if not tried. Either is possible.

It should also be remembered that in this particular case the two individuals have been thoroughly investigated by Portuguese legal authorities and there was no indication of them having done any crime at all. Not insufficient indication. Perhaps you think the PT legal authorities are asses?

And of course the corollary to your claim about evidence not having been found is of course tht it actually might not exist. Both are perfectly possible.

I've never hear of a Presumption of Guilt.

Which two individuals are you referring to? Personally, I think there are rather more than just two miscreants in the farrago we are discussing.

I did not intend to coin (as you seem to believe I did) the term 'presumption of guilt'. I certainly did not use that term. My reference was to the fact that you were emphasising the possibility of guilt over that of innocence.

Apologies, that should have referred to the three individuals. The three arguidos in this particular case.

There is a big difference between assuming guilt and saying that there is still doubt about a persons innocence.