Author Topic: Sceptics beliefs ?  (Read 239399 times)

0 Members and 5 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline G-Unit

Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
« Reply #585 on: April 08, 2019, 07:32:14 PM »
What do you mean why?  Do you think at a trial of an alleged abductor the open window and shutter would be disallowed as evidence, or not referred to?

Things aren't just randomly mentioned in court. They are mentioned because they are useful to the prosecution or the defence. What use are the window and shutters to either side?
Read and abide by the forum rules.
Result = happy posting.
Ignore and break the rules
Result = edits, deletions and unhappiness
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?board=2.0

Offline Venturi Swirl

Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
« Reply #586 on: April 08, 2019, 08:02:49 PM »
Things aren't just randomly mentioned in court. They are mentioned because they are useful to the prosecution or the defence. What use are the window and shutters to either side?
It was my understanding that the events of the alleged crime including how, why, when, what and where were presented in court by the prosecution and that key witnesses would be called upon to describe what they saw, heard, felt and thought.  Perhaps I am mistaken but I believed this was all part of the evidence?
"Surely the fact that their accounts were different reinforces their veracity rather than diminishes it? If they had colluded in protecting ........ surely all of their accounts would be the same?" - Faithlilly

Offline G-Unit

Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
« Reply #587 on: April 08, 2019, 08:56:16 PM »
It was my understanding that the events of the alleged crime including how, why, when, what and where were presented in court by the prosecution and that key witnesses would be called upon to describe what they saw, heard, felt and thought.  Perhaps I am mistaken but I believed this was all part of the evidence?

So they say they saw an open window and shutters. The defence says their client didn't touch either of them. How can the prosecution prove he/she/they did touch them?

Read and abide by the forum rules.
Result = happy posting.
Ignore and break the rules
Result = edits, deletions and unhappiness
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?board=2.0

Offline Venturi Swirl

Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
« Reply #588 on: April 08, 2019, 09:15:11 PM »
So they say they saw an open window and shutters. The defence says their client didn't touch either of them. How can the prosecution prove he/she/they did touch them?
They can’t.  Do you still not understand the difference between evidence and proof?
"Surely the fact that their accounts were different reinforces their veracity rather than diminishes it? If they had colluded in protecting ........ surely all of their accounts would be the same?" - Faithlilly

Offline G-Unit

Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
« Reply #589 on: April 08, 2019, 09:22:09 PM »
They can’t.  Do you still not understand the difference between evidence and proof?

So why mention it? Witnesses aren't questioned about something unless it helps to build a case against the accused. 
Read and abide by the forum rules.
Result = happy posting.
Ignore and break the rules
Result = edits, deletions and unhappiness
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?board=2.0

Offline Venturi Swirl

Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
« Reply #590 on: April 08, 2019, 09:40:19 PM »
So why mention it? Witnesses aren't questioned about something unless it helps to build a case against the accused.
So you think Kate’s witness statement or evidence would not be admissible or required in court is that what you’re saying?  Why would it not build a case against the accused?  Are eye witness accounts ignored because they are not proven? 
"Surely the fact that their accounts were different reinforces their veracity rather than diminishes it? If they had colluded in protecting ........ surely all of their accounts would be the same?" - Faithlilly

Offline Angelo222

Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
« Reply #591 on: April 08, 2019, 09:55:51 PM »
Is that it ?

More than enough given everything else that we know.
De troothe has the annoying habit of coming to the surface just when you least expect it!!

Je ne regrette rien!!

Offline Angelo222

Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
« Reply #592 on: April 08, 2019, 09:57:58 PM »
So are you saying that the evidence of the open window and shutter would be disallowed as evidence in court?  A simple yes or no will suffice.

No it wouldn't be disallowed as it was an observation according to Kate McCann, problem is though that only her fingerprints were identified on the window.  A claimed open window is not evidence that any intruder entered the apartment and removed a child.
De troothe has the annoying habit of coming to the surface just when you least expect it!!

Je ne regrette rien!!

Offline Angelo222

Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
« Reply #593 on: April 08, 2019, 10:00:38 PM »
So you think Kate’s witness statement or evidence would not be admissible or required in court is that what you’re saying?  Why would it not build a case against the accused?  Are eye witness accounts ignored because they are not proven?

Without corroboration they are meaningless.
De troothe has the annoying habit of coming to the surface just when you least expect it!!

Je ne regrette rien!!

Offline Venturi Swirl

Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
« Reply #594 on: April 08, 2019, 10:04:06 PM »
No it wouldn't be disallowed as it was an observation according to Kate McCann, problem is though that only her fingerprints were identified on the window.  A claimed open window is not evidence that any intruder entered the apartment and removed a child.
It would be in the trial of an alleged abductor, unless you believe the method of illegal entry to the apartment in such a trial would be ignored?  The open window and shutter are evidence that would be used in any trial of an alleged abductor, that is a fact, no matter how you want to wriggle out of it an change the terminology from evidence to “observation”.
"Surely the fact that their accounts were different reinforces their veracity rather than diminishes it? If they had colluded in protecting ........ surely all of their accounts would be the same?" - Faithlilly

Offline Venturi Swirl

Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
« Reply #595 on: April 08, 2019, 10:05:50 PM »
Without corroboration they are meaningless.
So in a prospective trial of Gerry McCann Martin Smith’s evidence would not be admitted without corroboration because it would be meaningless?  In a rape trial a victim’s testimony is meaningless without corroboration?  I see.
"Surely the fact that their accounts were different reinforces their veracity rather than diminishes it? If they had colluded in protecting ........ surely all of their accounts would be the same?" - Faithlilly

Offline G-Unit

Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
« Reply #596 on: April 08, 2019, 10:25:08 PM »
So you think Kate’s witness statement or evidence would not be admissible or required in court is that what you’re saying?  Why would it not build a case against the accused?  Are eye witness accounts ignored because they are not proven?

As you think it will be used, I suggest you are the one who needs to explain what, in your opinion, it adds to the prosecution case?
Read and abide by the forum rules.
Result = happy posting.
Ignore and break the rules
Result = edits, deletions and unhappiness
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?board=2.0

Offline G-Unit

Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
« Reply #597 on: April 08, 2019, 10:31:53 PM »
It would be in the trial of an alleged abductor, unless you believe the method of illegal entry to the apartment in such a trial would be ignored?  The open window and shutter are evidence that would be used in any trial of an alleged abductor, that is a fact, no matter how you want to wriggle out of it an change the terminology from evidence to “observation”.

To convict someone of abduction you need to either connect them to the crime scene or to the victim. There is nothing which connects anyone to the crime scene.
Read and abide by the forum rules.
Result = happy posting.
Ignore and break the rules
Result = edits, deletions and unhappiness
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?board=2.0

Offline Venturi Swirl

Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
« Reply #598 on: April 08, 2019, 10:35:04 PM »
As you think it will be used, I suggest you are the one who needs to explain what, in your opinion, it adds to the prosecution case?
In the same way that any other evidence would, obviously.  It is an important part of the jigsaw as it potentially shows that the apartment was enetered illegally and shows how.  I can’t believe I am having to explain it to you, frankly.  Let’s turn this on its head.  Imagine Gerry McCann is charged with faking an abduction.  Would the open window and shutters be evidence of that, or not as there is no corroborating evidence?
"Surely the fact that their accounts were different reinforces their veracity rather than diminishes it? If they had colluded in protecting ........ surely all of their accounts would be the same?" - Faithlilly

Offline pathfinder73

Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
« Reply #599 on: April 08, 2019, 10:46:21 PM »
In the same way that any other evidence would, obviously.  It is an important part of the jigsaw as it potentially shows that the apartment was enetered illegally and shows how.  I can’t believe I am having to explain it to you, frankly.  Let’s turn this on its head.  Imagine Gerry McCann is charged with faking an abduction.  Would the open window and shutters be evidence of that, or not as there is no corroborating evidence?

It would be evidence of staging against the parents e.g. evidence found on said open window. You would need to find evidence of an abductor inside that apartment or witnesses coming forward that overheard planning or talk so what have you got? You cannot say the invisible man took her.

The best lead for abduction were charity collectors who could have been casing the joint but they did not call at apartment 5A and they were doing rounds much earlier than when Maddy was reported to be missing. Trying to con and make some money and abducting a child is a huge leap. Why show your faces to many witnesses if your about to abduct a child. Doesn't make sense to me!
« Last Edit: April 08, 2019, 10:58:30 PM by pathfinder73 »
Smithman carrying a child in his arms checked his watch after passing the Smith family and the time was 10:03. Both are still unidentified 10 years later.