I don't mean using the term "innocent until proven guilty" i mean evidence to suggest they did not commit any crime?.
the so called anti maccanns are using evidence to make their point that they have committed a crime, before they go on trial in a court of law, so will one of the so called pros show some evidence, to rebut what is is the public domain.
2007-09-19 22:15:53 · 14 answers · asked by Anonymous in News & Events ➔ Current Events
hi Caesar's wife,there is nothing about this case that can give HAPPINESS to any one, a child has died, that will always make this case sad.
the police are still investigating, and the evidence they have , they still have.
now i am still waiting for at least one person to show some evidence to show they are innocent, you can do that before a criminal trial
so where is this evidence that has people thinking they are innnocent?
2007-09-19 22:30:58 · update #1
What evidence?
There isn't any otherwise the judge would have ruled that they need to return for questioning!
There is NO evidence to suggest any of the samples from the cat etc are 100% Maddies!!!!!
2007-09-19 22:19:37 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 7⤊ 5⤋
What a ridiculous question. The reason the legal system assumes innocence until guilt is proven is because otherwise you would have to assume that the whole world is guilty. Can you for example provide evidence that you have not committed any crimes?
Where do the 'anti-McCanns' get their so called 'evidence'? From the media. That's not evidence, its hearsay and rumour
I am not 'McCann supporter' neither am I against them.
Whatever has happend to their daughter is a tradegdy for sure. It is also a tradegy that so many people seem to get pleasure from making slanderous comments. Actually I think its a shameful and revolting side of some people's nature.
2007-09-20 05:31:20 · answer #2 · answered by Alex 3 · 2⤊ 1⤋
correct me if I am wrong but the basis of the the law in england,not sure about portugal. is the prosecuiton have to prove guilt. the macanns dont have to prove anything.
having said that the the fact that they have not admitted nothing at all over time after all the police and media intrusion seems to me a very good indication that they are completely innocent. a guilty person would have by now cracked under the pressure
2007-09-20 05:42:46 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
I am not a pro or anti Mccann, but until the "evidence" is presented to a jury in a court of law and a judgement has been made nobody has the right to be Judge and jury on their own.
We all have our own theories, and this is only natural, but YA is not the place that the final judgement can or should be made.
This is my first and last Mccann posting.
2007-09-20 05:33:05 · answer #4 · answered by Dilligaf 4 · 2⤊ 1⤋
What evidence are you using to prove their guilt? in this morning's paper, the evidence cannot be proved.
You don't have to prove your innocence, you have to prove your guilt. The evidence isn't strong enough - Madeleine was a member of a family, her dna would be everywhere. Their could be a perfectly innocent explanation for any of the points brought up.
I think if the police felt it would stand up, the McCanns would have been arrested by now.
Never mind - they might still be arrested and found guilty one day. That will make you happy.
They cannot prove they didn't do anything unless the child turns up. They were with her all the time - she is their daughter, she lived with them, her dna is with them. . The only proof there is, is that actually, they weren't with her when she disappeared. And if you accept the fact that she was "neglected" then they could not have been guilty of her disappearance.
2007-09-20 05:22:26 · answer #5 · answered by True Blue Brit 7 · 8⤊ 2⤋
yes they used evidence like the dna from the boot of the car which turned out to be the twins !its quite simple, i believe them ,i understand for some people they'd much rather see the worst in them because thats easier and lightens up their dull lives , but you tell me whats wrong with actually believing these people . look at that actor recently gaoled for down loading child porn ,who would of belived he would do that ,my point here is that there are so many pervs and kiddy fiddlers every where i don,t think we appreciate just how many there are and what lengths they go to
2007-09-20 05:30:30 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
Well said, Dilligaf.
And while I am neither pro nor anti McCann, I also agree that it's evidence of guilt that is necessary, not innocence.
2007-09-20 05:44:50 · answer #7 · answered by Specsy 4 · 1⤊ 1⤋
What evidence have the anti's got then,they really should join the police if they have,because even they haven't got any,or else the parents would be locked up now,you sure are stupid.
2007-09-20 05:25:16 · answer #8 · answered by Pat R 6 · 6⤊ 1⤋
There is no evidence to charge them with murder or it would have happened. We live in a country where a case must be proved beyond reasonable doubt which is something the lynch mob would do well to remember.
2007-09-20 05:25:20 · answer #9 · answered by catblackindia 4 · 6⤊ 2⤋
Please excuse my copy & paste, Justme :
Why do i believe that the McCanns are innocent of murdering their Madeleine?
1. 'cos theres no proof they did.
2. 'cos of the way they strive to spread awareness of their Madeleine with no regard to the flak & scrutiny hurled against them.
3. 'cos till now there is no little body found in spite of experts, sniffer dogs & the worldwide pressure on the PJ.
4. 'cos there is no motive.
5. 'cos there is no history or indication of past abuse, unstability or unhappiness in that family.
6. 'cos IF they were, even if it were accidental, they would have cracked by now.
7. 'cos all the accusations hurled against them are based on NOTHING BUT HEARSAY.
2007-09-20 05:32:51 · answer #10 · answered by Faith 6 · 3⤊ 2⤋