Latest theory lands on Portuguese AG's desk

[Mr Gray]

In Davel’s case I would say it was an argument as he has never produced any calculations.

As I have, said... Exactly  as it's, done in a court of law..
Im happy to talk figures....3 possibilities

first theparents...highly unlikely based on the evidence...but lets be generous...15%
wokae and wandered...highly unlikely base on the final report...but lets be generous...25%


That leaves abduction at 60 % proved on the balance of probabilities

[Robittybob1]

Exactly the same as it's done in a court of law....

So it is not mathematical, but a judge's considered opinion, whether the scale tilts to one side or the other.  So I'd say the decision is influenced by the ability of those presenting the case.  Where as with maths there would be one answer regardless.

Looking back I'm not sure why the comment "No, on the balance of probability." was made.

[Mr Gray]

So it is not mathematical, but a judge's considered opinion, whether the scale tilts to one side or the other.  So I'd say the decision is influenced by the ability of those presenting the case.  Where as with maths there would be one answer regardless.

Looking back I'm not sure why the comment "No, on the balance of probability." was made.

It's, far more influenced  by the evidencd

[slartibartfast]

As I have, said... Exactly  as it's, done in a court of law..
Im happy to talk figures....3 possibilities

first theparents...highly unlikely based on the evidence...but lets be generous...15%
wokae and wandered...highly unlikely base on the final report...but lets be generous...25%


That leaves abduction at 60 % proved on the balance of probabilities

You have just made up some figures.

[Mr Gray]

You have just made up some figures.

In your opinion
I've give estimates based on the evidence... You give your estimates...

[Robittybob1]

In your opinion
I've give estimates based on the evidence... You give your estimates...

Everyone could just choose figures that suit their case.

[Mr Gray]

Everyone could just choose figures that suit their case.

I've based my figures on evidence

So which one do you not agree with... Do you see parental involvement  higher than 15

[Alice Purjorick]

You have just made up some figures.

Balance of probablities applies only to civil proceedings. He with evidence > 50% wins.
Criminal cases are decided on beyond reasonable doubt requiring > 83% to "win".

[Mr Gray]

Balance of probablities applies only to civil proceedings. He with evidence > 50% wins.
Criminal cases are decided on beyond reasonable doubt requiring > 83% to "win".

I've never claimed any different... I'm highlighting the meaning of the word.. Proof... Which is, an oft used but not defined word

[Robittybob1]

I've based my figures on evidence

So which one do you not agree with... Do you see parental involvement  higher than 15

That is the thing I would dispute the so called evidence you list.

Based on the studies about who abducts kids, I have not seen enough evidence to eliminate the parents and those known to the parents as yet.  They turned Yvonne Martin away who was there to help.  Others have found the group appear to be hiding something.  So that whole group still in the picture.  OK that is not just the family but those known to the family.  So I'm not saying Kate and Gerry did it, but someone they know.

And the fact that the PJ said "Woke and wandered is unlikely" - that was just another opinion without facts to back it up IMO.

[Mr Gray]

Balance of probablities applies only to civil proceedings. He with evidence > 50% wins.
Criminal cases are decided on beyond reasonable doubt requiring > 83% to "win".

You have given me food for thought...
If it went to court now.... Based on the evidence... The mccanns, would be found not guilty..
So based on that, we, can put their involvement  at Max 17 %...so my 15% was, pretty good

[Mr Gray]

That is the thing I would dispute the so called evidence you list.

Based on the studies about who abducts kids, I have not seen enough evidence to eliminate the parents and those known to the parents as yet.  They turned Yvonne Martin away who was there to help.  Others have found the group appear to be hiding something.  So that whole group still in the picture.  OK that is not just the family but those known to the family.  So I'm not saying Kate and Gerry did it, but someone they know.

And the fact that the PJ said "Woke and wandered is unlikely" - that was just another opinion without facts to back it up IMO.

The, studies, are not evidence and cannot be used as, evidence... You are, way of the mark with your understanding  there.. Imo

I don't think the pj would make  such a, definite statement  without some evidence... So it's, expert opinion

[Robittybob1]

Balance of probablities applies only to civil proceedings. He with evidence > 50% wins.
Criminal cases are decided on beyond reasonable doubt requiring > 83% to "win".

How did you calculate the 83%

[Robittybob1]

The, studies, are not evidence and cannot be used as, evidence... You are, way of the mark with your understanding  there.. Imo

I don't think the pj would make  such a, definite statement  without some evidence... So it's, expert opinion

The definition of expert in these cases was such that the experts had to be not involved in the case.  The PJ being the investigators can't be the ones giving the expert opinion.
https://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Expert+witnesses
"expert witness
n. a person who is a specialist in a subject, often technical, who may present his/her expert opinion without having been a witness to any occurrence relating to the lawsuit or criminal case. It is an exception to the rule against giving an opinion in trial, provided that the expert is qualified by evidence of his/her expertise, training and special knowledge. If the expertise is challenged, the attorney for the party calling the "expert" must make a showing of the necessary background through questions in court, and the trial judge has discretion to qualify the witness or rule he/she is not an expert, or is an expert on limited subjects. Experts are usually paid handsomely for their services and may be asked by the opposition the amount they are receiving for their work on the case. In most jurisdictions, both sides must exchange the names and addresses of proposed experts to allow pre-trial depositions."

[Mr Gray]

The definition of expert in these cases was such that the experts had to be not involved in the case.  The PJ being the investigators can't be the ones giving the expert opinion.
https://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Expert+witnesses
"expert witness
n. a person who is a specialist in a subject, often technical, who may present his/her expert opinion without having been a witness to any occurrence relating to the lawsuit or criminal case. It is an exception to the rule against giving an opinion in trial, provided that the expert is qualified by evidence of his/her expertise, training and special knowledge. If the expertise is challenged, the attorney for the party calling the "expert" must make a showing of the necessary background through questions in court, and the trial judge has discretion to qualify the witness or rule he/she is not an expert, or is an expert on limited subjects. Experts are usually paid handsomely for their services and may be asked by the opposition the amount they are receiving for their work on the case. In most jurisdictions, both sides must exchange the names and addresses of proposed experts to allow pre-trial depositions."

It speaks of being a witness in the case... So looks, you are wrong on that one too