UK Justice Forum 🇬🇧
Disappeared and Abducted Children and Young Adults => Madeleine McCann (3) disappeared from her parent's holiday apartment at Ocean Club, Praia da Luz, Portugal on 3 May 2007. No trace of her has ever been found. => Topic started by: Angelo222 on April 30, 2013, 08:29:37 AM
-
There appears to be some confusion among posters as to what constitutes evidence of criminal activity and in particular where it relates to the McCann's and the rest of the Tapas 9. There is a myth here so let's here your views?
My own position is that this is a myth borne out of inuendo and rumour. As far as I am concerned there is no such evidence but others including Debunker claim otherwise so nows your chance.
What is this evidence??
-
In terms of real evidence of criminal behavious by the McCanns - witnesses, forensic, circumstantial, DNA or cctv - None. Niet. Nada.
What there has been is a great deal of innuendo, sensational press reports, police "helpfully leaking" false information and of course a dedicated team of bloggers and forum members intent on keeping the McCanns "in the frame", for god knows what reason.
Perhaps because they have betrayed their working class origins by working hard and becoming successful middle class professionals.
There also seems to be a peculiar vitriol reserved for mothers who lose a child. Especially manifest in (some) other women.
And of course not helped by an (ex) policeman, way out of his depth in a high profile case, who having been removed from the case decided to carry on his campaign against the parents of the victim in the form of a book, interviews and documentaries. Maybe in a fit of pique? Or maybe he saw an opportunity to make some money. Either way, totally unacceptable.
-
WE had this discussion with Debunker on another forum. According to him it is unacceptable to say there is no evidence against the McCanns, but I think we CAN say that the evidence against the McCanns has no real substance. Something like that anyway. In my book evidence that is insubstantial amounts to no real evidence at all, but that's where Debunker and I differ.
Debunker categorically claims that it is a myth to state that there is no evidence against the McCanns so I for one want to hear what this evidence is?? In fact I challenge anyone to provide or show any evidence of culpability on their behalf in relation to their daughters disappearance. The gloves are off so let's hear it??
-
The original question asks: "what constitutes evidence of criminal activity and in particular where it relates to the McCann's and the rest of the Tapas 9"
I suggest there is no evidence which would allow a case against them to get past the public prosecutor.
Dogs barking, inconclusive forensics etc do not count.
While we are about it - many people misread the terms "inconclusive" in forensic evidence terms as being open to doubt. Inconclusive means that no conclusion can be drawn, thereby ruling the evidence irrelevant.
-
The original question asks: "what constitutes evidence of criminal activity and in particular where it relates to the McCann's and the rest of the Tapas 9"
I suggest there is no evidence which would allow a case against them to get past the public prosecutor.
Dogs barking, inconclusive forensics etc do not count.
While we are about it - many people misread the terms "inconclusive" in forensic evidence terms as being open to doubt. Inconclusive means that no conclusion can be drawn, thereby ruling the evidence irrelevant.
I agree totally. But we must use words in their real sense.
I know that Wikipedia is frowned on academically, but it does have the wisdom of the crowd.
I quote the opening paragraphs of the article:
"Evidence, broadly construed, is anything presented in support of an assertion. This support may be strong or weak. The strongest type of evidence is that which provides direct proof of the truth of an assertion. At the other extreme is evidence that is merely consistent with an assertion but does not rule out other, contradictory assertions, as in circumstantial evidence.
In law, rules of evidence govern the types of evidence that are admissible in a legal proceeding, as well as the quality and quantity of evidence that are necessary to fulfill the legal burden of proof. Types of legal evidence include testimony, documentary evidence, and physical evidence."
-
Fair points, and much better put than I could. But as far as I can see, nothing has arisen thus far even comes close to fulfilling the "burden of proof".
-
Fair points, and much better put than I could. But as far as I can see, nothing has arisen thus far even comes close to fulfilling the "burden of proof".
Totally agree.
My point in this argument (and also the other pro myth that the McCanns have been "cleared") is that these pro myths (provably false assertions held for no good reason other than to comfort the mind) give forkers a stick to beat them with.
There is evidence against the McCanns (but nothing near proof on any measure, prima facie case, balance of probabilities, or beyond reaso babble doubt.)
There is no legal procedure that "clears" suspects, save a trial finding of 'not guilty' (which in fact only shows inadequate evidence, and does not even prove factual innocence, only legal innocence). People are due the presumption of innocence, and that is all.
-
Police investigations start with analysis of basic evidence, excluding those with no means, motive and opportunity.
There is evidence that the McCanns (and many others) had some or all of these.
This is evidence. Not proof, but evidence all the same.
-
Again, going back to the original question - I suggest that there is no practical evidence of "criminal activity".
Unless we are going to get into semantics, and "what do you mean by mean" circular arguments.
-
It is a cop out to claim it is just semantics.
It is a principle of law (at least in England and Wales) that if words are not defined in statute, then they should be seen to have there everyday meaning).
It is undeniable that there is 'evidence' (...anything presented in support of an assertion. This support may be strong or weak. The strongest type of evidence is that which provides direct proof of the truth of an assertion. At the other extreme is evidence that is merely consistent with an assertion but does not rule out other, contradictory assertions, as in circumstantial evidence.) against the McCanns.
-
It is a cop out to claim it is just semantics.
It is a principle of law (at least in England and Wales) that if words are not defined in statute, then they should be seen to have there everyday meaning).
It is undeniable that there is 'evidence' (...anything presented in support of an assertion. This support may be strong or weak. The strongest type of evidence is that which provides direct proof of the truth of an assertion. At the other extreme is evidence that is merely consistent with an assertion but does not rule out other, contradictory assertions, as in circumstantial evidence.) against the McCanns.
For heavens sake stop waffling Debunker and tell us what this evidence is? If you can???
-
Again, going back to the original question - I suggest that there is no practical evidence of "criminal activity".
Unless we are going to get into semantics, and "what do you mean by mean" circular arguments.
100% agree. There is no evidence implicating Gerry or Kate in any crime and Debunker knows it.
-
It is a cop out to claim it is just semantics.
It is a principle of law (at least in England and Wales) that if words are not defined in statute, then they should be seen to have there everyday meaning).
It is undeniable that there is 'evidence' (...anything presented in support of an assertion. This support may be strong or weak. The strongest type of evidence is that which provides direct proof of the truth of an assertion. At the other extreme is evidence that is merely consistent with an assertion but does not rule out other, contradictory assertions, as in circumstantial evidence.) against the McCanns.
For heavens sake stop waffling Debunker and tell us what this evidence is? If you can???
Means, motive, opportunity.
Dog alerts to ?cadaver scent
Lack of alibi
Muddled time line
Smith sighting
All of that is included in the definition of evidence above.
It is pretty seriously deficient in probative force. But it is evidence all the same.
-
Again, going back to the original question - I suggest that there is no practical evidence of "criminal activity".
Unless we are going to get into semantics, and "what do you mean by mean" circular arguments.
100% agree. There is no evidence implicating Gerry or Kate in any crime and Debunker knows it.
It really helps debate if people keep to the true meaning of words.
You say:
"There is no evidence implicating Gerry or Kate in any crime"
That is a false statement.
There is evidence IMPLICATING Gerry and Kate in a crime
There is no evidence capable of PROVING Gerry and Kate committed any crime.
Evidence is anything that might support (not necessarily prove) an assertion.
-
For heavens sake stop waffling Debunker and tell us what this evidence is? If you can???
Means, motive, opportunity.
Dog alerts to ?cadaver scent
Lack of alibi
Muddled time line
Smith sighting
All of that is included in the definition of evidence above.
It is pretty seriously deficient in probative force. But it is evidence all the same.
You have been asked to provide evidence that the McCanns are implicated in a crime which you have summarily prevaricated and failed to do. Do read the thread title.
-
For heavens sake stop waffling Debunker and tell us what this evidence is? If you can???
Means, motive, opportunity.
Dog alerts to ?cadaver scent
Lack of alibi
Muddled time line
Smith sighting
All of that is included in the definition of evidence above.
It is pretty seriously deficient in probative force. But it is evidence all the same.
You have been asked to provide evidence that the McCanns are implicated in a crime which you have summarily prevaricated and failed to do. Do read the thread title.
I have read the thread title. Have you?
It reads:
"What is the evidence against the McCanns"
I have produced a list above.
Evidence is any material that may support (not necessarily 'prove') an assertion.
The material I have produced doed support (but does not prove) the assertion.
-
I am inclined to agree with Angelo. None of those could be classified as "evidence of criminal activity" in a legal context. Not even close.
Angelo - you must excuse my old friend Debunker. He will argue until the cows come home (and then leave again because they can't stand the arguments).
-
The question is "What is the evidence against the McCanns". It is not "What is the evidence in the case".
You obviously don't understand the concept of evidence Debunker. Taken at its highest what you have provided wouldn't even get you past the starting block. What you have referred to is what is called "neutral evidence" and is not in any way shape or form AGAINST the McCanns.
The McCann had neither the Means, the Motive or the Opportunity to partake in any crime the night Madeleine disappeared.
In addition, dog alerts to cadaver scent is inconclusive so meaningless.
Both McCanns had an alibi that night.
Muddled time line was to be expected and is not evidence of a crime.
The Smith sighting has no relation to McCanns as shown by the corroborated facts.
-
Debunker is confusing Evidence with Evidence Of A Crime.
In the thread title the operative word is 'AGAINST'.
-
http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-criminal-evidence.htm
"Criminal evidence is any exhibit or testimony regarding a crime."
If I go into a police station and say that I have just seen Mr Pink shoot Mr White in the street, the police would make a written note of what I said, possibly ask me to complete and sign a witness statement. My allegation, the policeman's note and my statement is all evidence against Mr Pink. Investigating further they find that Mr Pink was present and holding a gun that had recently been fired- opportunity and means. Quite a bit of evidence. Then a further piece if evidence is discovered- Mr Pink and Mr White were actors in an open air filming session and the bullet was a blank. No proof, no crime, but plenty of evidence to be considered, weighed and a conclusion drawn.
There js a real difference between Evidence and Proof.
-
i think the point angello is making is that the thread is about evidence which can show some sort of guilt against gerry or kate as against evidence in general. what is this evidence against them or is this another myth?
http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-criminal-evidence.htm
"Criminal evidence is any exhibit or testimony regarding a crime."
If I go into a police station and say that I have just seen Mr Pink shoot Mr White in the street, the police would make a written note of what I said, possibly ask me to complete and sign a witness statement. My allegation, the policeman's note and my statement is all evidence against Mr Pink. Investigating further they find that Mr Pink was present and holding a gun that had recently been fired- opportunity and means. Quite a bit of evidence. Then a further piece if evidence is discovered- Mr Pink and Mr White were actors in an open air filming session and the bullet was a blank. No proof, no crime, but plenty of evidence to be considered, weighed and a conclusion drawn.
There js a real difference between Evidence and Proof.
-
Evidence that can show guilt has a technical name- PROOF.
There is no PROOF against the McCanns
There is EVIDENCE against them.
-
It is a cop out to claim it is just semantics.
It is a principle of law (at least in England and Wales) that if words are not defined in statute, then they should be seen to have there everyday meaning).
It is undeniable that there is 'evidence' (...anything presented in support of an assertion. This support may be strong or weak. The strongest type of evidence is that which provides direct proof of the truth of an assertion. At the other extreme is evidence that is merely consistent with an assertion but does not rule out other, contradictory assertions, as in circumstantial evidence.) against the McCanns.
Debunker, there was evidence that Colin Stagg killed Rachel Nickell. As we now know he didn't kill her so was that evidence merely "weak" or was it non-existent?
Evidence is neither weak nor strong. Its probative value may be weak or strong.
People are confusing the meaning of the words EVIDENCE and PROOF.
-
Evidence that can show guilt has a technical name- PROOF.
There is no PROOF against the McCanns
There is EVIDENCE against them.
You are being silly now Debunker. Do you understand the concept of what is required under the law to prosecute someone and more importantly what neutral evidence is?
-
OK, you didnt heed the warning. But I am afraid you b....rs have asked for it.
Legal Evidence and Proof: Kaptein, Prakken and Verheij.
The synopsis is here.
http://www.ashgate.com/pdf/SamplePages/Legal_Evidence_and_Proof_Intro.pdf
That should keep you busy for a few hours........
-
Evidence that can show guilt has a technical name- PROOF.
There is no PROOF against the McCanns
There is EVIDENCE against them.
You are being silly now Debunker. Do you understand the concept of what is required under the law to prosecute someone and more importantly what neutral evidence is?
No, I am afraid it is you that is being silly.
Let's do dictionaries:
Collins:
Evidence: 1/ Ground for belief or disbelief; data on which to base proof or establish truth or falsehood.
Chambers
Evidence: that which makes anything evident; means of proving an unknown or disputed fact; support (eg for a belief); indication; information in a law case; testimony; a witness or witnesses collectively
OED Concise
2/ Indication, Sign; ... testimony, facts, in support of ... a conclusion. ... 3/ (Law) Information (given personally or drawn from documents etc. ) tending to establish facts...
It seems that the dictionaries agree with me. Who agrees with your definition?
-
I particularly like this:
code of Hammurabi:
if a man charge a man with sorcery, but cannot convict him, he who is charged
with sorcery shall go to the sacred river, and he shall throw himself in the sacred
river; if the river overcome him, his prosecutor shall take to himself his house.
if the river show the man to be innocent and he come forth unharmed, he that
charged him with sorcery shall be put to death. He who threw himself into the
river shall take to himself the house of his accuser.
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yp_l5ntikaU
-
"It's a fair cop"!!!!
-
So are we all agreed then that there is no evidence against the McCanns capable of sustaining any allegation of guilt in respect of any crime or criminal act??
-
I think so, Angelo.
Apart from Debunker.
But he is NOT the messiah - he is a very naughty boy.... ?{)(**
-
Interesting debate so lets see what others make of it later this evening before this topic moves to the myth section.
-
Cadaver and blood dogs alerted in respect of the McCann's apartment, vehicle, and personal items ( whilst alerting nowhwere else )
DNA, some of which could be Madeleine's was subsequenty harvested
A witness says he is 80% sure he saw Gerry McCann carrying a child that night
Mrs Fenn, the upstairs neighbour heard a child crying for an hour and a quarter, one night earlier in the week ( bringing into question the McCann's claim of half hourly checks )
Kate McCann refused to cooperate with police
The McCanns left Portugal within hours of having been made Arguido, and immediately hired the world's most notorious extradition lawyer
None of the above is conclusive evidence, and some of it may be contested ... but it is evidence
-
http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-criminal-evidence.htm
"Criminal evidence is any exhibit or testimony regarding a crime."
If I go into a police station and say that I have just seen Mr Pink shoot Mr White in the street, the police would make a written note of what I said, possibly ask me to complete and sign a witness statement. My allegation, the policeman's note and my statement is all evidence against Mr Pink. Investigating further they find that Mr Pink was present and holding a gun that had recently been fired- opportunity and means. Quite a bit of evidence. Then a further piece if evidence is discovered- Mr Pink and Mr White were actors in an open air filming session and the bullet was a blank. No proof, no crime, but plenty of evidence to be considered, weighed and a conclusion drawn.
There js a real difference between Evidence and Proof.
I think the point your example overlooks is that (in the example you give!) the "evidence" (actual evidence before the facts are known) is superseded by facts that outright contradict and disprove the "evidence".
At that point, the "evidence" ceases to be evidence.
-
http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-criminal-evidence.htm
"Criminal evidence is any exhibit or testimony regarding a crime."
If I go into a police station and say that I have just seen Mr Pink shoot Mr White in the street, the police would make a written note of what I said, possibly ask me to complete and sign a witness statement. My allegation, the policeman's note and my statement is all evidence against Mr Pink. Investigating further they find that Mr Pink was present and holding a gun that had recently been fired- opportunity and means. Quite a bit of evidence. Then a further piece if evidence is discovered- Mr Pink and Mr White were actors in an open air filming session and the bullet was a blank. No proof, no crime, but plenty of evidence to be considered, weighed and a conclusion drawn.
There js a real difference between Evidence and Proof.
I think the point your example overlooks is that (in the example you give!) the "evidence" (actual evidence before the facts are known) is superseded by facts that outright contradict and disprove the "evidence".
At that point, the "evidence" ceases to be evidence.
None of the evidence I listed has been disproven ... contested, yes ... but not disproven
We could add the frequency with which the McCann's contradict the witness statements of others ( including those in their own party )
More importantly though, there is evidence that the McCanns changed their own statements. In particular, Kate McCann changed her version of how she found the room that night ( which is very significant )
There is also much circumstancial evidence against the McCanns, including the fact that they met with several lawyers within days of their child having disappeared, and had set up a 'fighting fund' within that first week
Although none of this evidence is conclusive, it cannot be waved away as though it never existed
-
why is the word 'em bell ish' proscribed on this forum?
It's a long story Martha but I will uncensor it now. Thanks.
-
Cadaver and blood dogs alerted in respect of the McCann's apartment, vehicle, and personal items ( whilst alerting nowhwere else )
DNA, some of which could be Madeleine's was subsequenty harvested
A witness says he is 80% sure he saw Gerry McCann carrying a child that night
Mrs Fenn, the upstairs neighbour heard a child crying for an hour and a quarter, one night earlier in the week ( bringing into question the McCann's claim of half hourly checks )
Kate McCann refused to cooperate with police
The McCanns left Portugal within hours of having been made Arguido, and immediately hired the world's most notorious extradition lawyer
None of the above is conclusive evidence, and some of it may be contested ... but it is evidence
Your last sentence says it all icabodcrane.
The points you stated are merely events which have no evidential value in a court of law.
Inconclusive DNA samples!
A witness saw a man carrying a child!
Someone heard a child crying!
Kate McCann wouldn't answer everything she was asked!
The McCanns left Portugal!
Oh dear icabodcrane...any self respecting attorney would laugh you out of court with that lot. @)(++(*
Where is all this EVIDENCE/PROOF etc against the McCann's?
-
So are we all agreed then that there is no evidence against the McCanns capable of sustaining any allegation of guilt in respect of any crime or criminal act??
But that is a completely different question which could be better phrased:
'There is no sustainable PROOF of the McCanns guilt'
Which is a completely different concept all together.
-
Cadaver and blood dogs alerted in respect of the McCann's apartment, vehicle, and personal items ( whilst alerting nowhwere else )
DNA, some of which could be Madeleine's was subsequenty harvested
A witness says he is 80% sure he saw Gerry McCann carrying a child that night
Mrs Fenn, the upstairs neighbour heard a child crying for an hour and a quarter, one night earlier in the week ( bringing into question the McCann's claim of half hourly checks )
Kate McCann refused to cooperate with police
The McCanns left Portugal within hours of having been made Arguido, and immediately hired the world's most notorious extradition lawyer
None of the above is conclusive evidence, and some of it may be contested ... but it is evidence
Totally agree.
Are you going to be abusive when I am on the same side of the argument as your good self? Or am I a goody then?
-
If it is strong corroborated evidence you are looking for capable of a sustaining a submission in Court then look to the people who were in and around the tapas bar on the night in question.
Together their evidence gives Kate and Gerry a solid alibi from the moment they arrived at the table. You then have to work out if anything happened between the time they brought the children back to the apartment that afternoon and the moment they arrived at the table.
-
http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-criminal-evidence.htm
"Criminal evidence is any exhibit or testimony regarding a crime."
If I go into a police station and say that I have just seen Mr Pink shoot Mr White in the street, the police would make a written note of what I said, possibly ask me to complete and sign a witness statement. My allegation, the policeman's note and my statement is all evidence against Mr Pink. Investigating further they find that Mr Pink was present and holding a gun that had recently been fired- opportunity and means. Quite a bit of evidence. Then a further piece if evidence is discovered- Mr Pink and Mr White were actors in an open air filming session and the bullet was a blank. No proof, no crime, but plenty of evidence to be considered, weighed and a conclusion drawn.
There js a real difference between Evidence and Proof.
I think the point your example overlooks is that (in the example you give!) the "evidence" (actual evidence before the facts are known) is superseded by facts that outright contradict and disprove the "evidence".
At that point, the "evidence" ceases to be evidence.
Exactly! You have got it.
Evidence is value neutral. It can be correct or incorrect, pertinent or not pertinent, probative or not probative, sensible or silly etc.
All that evidence is is some form of information that is brought forward to support a belief.
Glad we are beginning to clear this up.
-
http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-criminal-evidence.htm
"Criminal evidence is any exhibit or testimony regarding a crime."
If I go into a police station and say that I have just seen Mr Pink shoot Mr White in the street, the police would make a written note of what I said, possibly ask me to complete and sign a witness statement. My allegation, the policeman's note and my statement is all evidence against Mr Pink. Investigating further they find that Mr Pink was present and holding a gun that had recently been fired- opportunity and means. Quite a bit of evidence. Then a further piece if evidence is discovered- Mr Pink and Mr White were actors in an open air filming session and the bullet was a blank. No proof, no crime, but plenty of evidence to be considered, weighed and a conclusion drawn.
There js a real difference between Evidence and Proof.
I think the point your example overlooks is that (in the example you give!) the "evidence" (actual evidence before the facts are known) is superseded by facts that outright contradict and disprove the "evidence".
At that point, the "evidence" ceases to be evidence.
None of the evidence I listed has been disproven ... contested, yes ... but not disproven
We could add the frequency with which the McCann's contradict the witness statements of others ( including those in their own party )
More importantly though, there is evidence that the McCanns changed their own statements. In particular, Kate McCann changed her version of how she found the room that night ( which is very significant )
There is also much circumstancial evidence against the McCanns, including the fact that they met with several lawyers within days of their child having disappeared, and had set up a 'fighting fund' within that first week
Although none of this evidence is conclusive, it cannot be waved away as though it never existed
Agree. I happen to think that most of that evidence is valueless bollox, but evidence it is.
-
Cadaver and blood dogs alerted in respect of the McCann's apartment, vehicle, and personal items ( whilst alerting nowhwere else )
DNA, some of which could be Madeleine's was subsequenty harvested
A witness says he is 80% sure he saw Gerry McCann carrying a child that night
Mrs Fenn, the upstairs neighbour heard a child crying for an hour and a quarter, one night earlier in the week ( bringing into question the McCann's claim of half hourly checks )
Kate McCann refused to cooperate with police
The McCanns left Portugal within hours of having been made Arguido, and immediately hired the world's most notorious extradition lawyer
None of the above is conclusive evidence, and some of it may be contested ... but it is evidence
Totally agree.
Are you going to be abusive when I am on the same side of the argument as your good self? Or am I a goody then?
8@??)( @)(++(*
-
Cadaver and blood dogs alerted in respect of the McCann's apartment, vehicle, and personal items ( whilst alerting nowhwere else )
DNA, some of which could be Madeleine's was subsequenty harvested
A witness says he is 80% sure he saw Gerry McCann carrying a child that night
Mrs Fenn, the upstairs neighbour heard a child crying for an hour and a quarter, one night earlier in the week ( bringing into question the McCann's claim of half hourly checks )
Kate McCann refused to cooperate with police
The McCanns left Portugal within hours of having been made Arguido, and immediately hired the world's most notorious extradition lawyer
None of the above is conclusive evidence, and some of it may be contested ... but it is evidence
Your last sentence says it all icabodcrane.
The points you stated are merely events which have no evidential value in a court of law.
Inconclusive DNA samples!
A witness saw a man carrying a child!
Someone heard a child crying!
Kate McCann wouldn't answer everything she was asked!
The McCanns left Portugal!
Oh dear icabodcrane...any self respecting attorney would laugh you out of court with that lot. @)(++(*
Where is all this EVIDENCE/PROOF etc against the McCann's?
Evidence does not equal proof.
Evidence may support a proof. Proof may require evidence. But the two concepts are separate.
-
If it is strong corroborated evidence you are looking for capable of a sustaining a submission in Court then look to the people who were in and around the tapas bar on the night in question.
Together their evidence gives Kate and Gerry a solid alibi from the moment they arrived at the table. You then have to work out if anything happened between the time they brought the children back to the apartment that afternoon and the moment they arrived at the table.
Having strong corroborated evidence of a belief does not stop assertions that contradict that from being evidence.
-
Cadaver and blood dogs alerted in respect of the McCann's apartment, vehicle, and personal items ( whilst alerting nowhwere else )
DNA, some of which could be Madeleine's was subsequenty harvested
A witness says he is 80% sure he saw Gerry McCann carrying a child that night
Mrs Fenn, the upstairs neighbour heard a child crying for an hour and a quarter, one night earlier in the week ( bringing into question the McCann's claim of half hourly checks )
Kate McCann refused to cooperate with police
The McCanns left Portugal within hours of having been made Arguido, and immediately hired the world's most notorious extradition lawyer
None of the above is conclusive evidence, and some of it may be contested ... but it is evidence
Your last sentence says it all icabodcrane.
The points you stated are merely events which have no evidential value in a court of law.
Inconclusive DNA samples!
A witness saw a man carrying a child!
Someone heard a child crying!
Kate McCann wouldn't answer everything she was asked!
The McCanns left Portugal!
Oh dear icabodcrane...any self respecting attorney would laugh you out of court with that lot. @)(++(*
Where is all this EVIDENCE/PROOF etc against the McCann's?
This thread does not ask for 'Proof' of the McCann's invovement in a crime ( there is none ... if there were then the Portuguese prosecutor would have made charges )
This thread asks what 'evidence exists in that regard ... it doesn't ask for 'conclusive' or non-contestible evidence ... it just asks for evidence
I obliged
-
So far I have provided many cites for the correct use of the word Evidence in both Science and Legal circles.
All that has been advanced against what I am saying is people's own 'personal language' ideas of the concepts (see Wittgenstein for the utility of personal languages!)
Let us use English correctly.
Even Wikipedia agrees with me!
-
Cadaver and blood dogs alerted in respect of the McCann's apartment, vehicle, and personal items ( whilst alerting nowhwere else )
DNA, some of which could be Madeleine's was subsequenty harvested
A witness says he is 80% sure he saw Gerry McCann carrying a child that night
Mrs Fenn, the upstairs neighbour heard a child crying for an hour and a quarter, one night earlier in the week ( bringing into question the McCann's claim of half hourly checks )
Kate McCann refused to cooperate with police
The McCanns left Portugal within hours of having been made Arguido, and immediately hired the world's most notorious extradition lawyer
None of the above is conclusive evidence, and some of it may be contested ... but it is evidence
Your last sentence says it all icabodcrane.
The points you stated are merely events which have no evidential value in a court of law.
Inconclusive DNA samples!
A witness saw a man carrying a child!
Someone heard a child crying!
Kate McCann wouldn't answer everything she was asked!
The McCanns left Portugal!
Oh dear icabodcrane...any self respecting attorney would laugh you out of court with that lot. @)(++(*
Where is all this EVIDENCE/PROOF etc against the McCann's?
This thread does not ask for 'Proof' of the McCann's invovement in a crime ( there is none ... if there were then the Portuguese prosecutor would have made charges )
This thread asks what 'evidence exists in that regard ... it doesn't ask for 'conclusive' or non-contestible evidence ... it just asks for evidence
I obliged
Totally correct.
-
Cadaver and blood dogs alerted in respect of the McCann's apartment, vehicle, and personal items ( whilst alerting nowhwere else )
DNA, some of which could be Madeleine's was subsequenty harvested
A witness says he is 80% sure he saw Gerry McCann carrying a child that night
Mrs Fenn, the upstairs neighbour heard a child crying for an hour and a quarter, one night earlier in the week ( bringing into question the McCann's claim of half hourly checks )
Kate McCann refused to cooperate with police
The McCanns left Portugal within hours of having been made Arguido, and immediately hired the world's most notorious extradition lawyer
None of the above is conclusive evidence, and some of it may be contested ... but it is evidence
Your last sentence says it all icabodcrane.
The points you stated are merely events which have no evidential value in a court of law.
Inconclusive DNA samples!
A witness saw a man carrying a child!
Someone heard a child crying!
Kate McCann wouldn't answer everything she was asked!
The McCanns left Portugal!
Oh dear icabodcrane...any self respecting attorney would laugh you out of court with that lot. @)(++(*
Where is all this EVIDENCE/PROOF etc against the McCann's?
This thread does not ask for 'Proof' of the McCann's invovement in a crime ( there is none ... if there were then the Portuguese prosecutor would have made charges )
This thread asks what 'evidence exists in that regard ... it doesn't ask for 'conclusive' or non-contestible evidence ... it just asks for evidence
I obliged
Totally correct.
I'm going for a lie down ( I think I'm in shock ! )
I'll leave it to you ... you old goody you 8(0(*
-
Evidence that can show guilt has a technical name- PROOF.
There is no PROOF against the McCanns
There is EVIDENCE against them.
You are being silly now Debunker. Do you understand the concept of what is required under the law to prosecute someone and more importantly what neutral evidence is?
No, I am afraid it is you that is being silly.
Let's do dictionaries:
Collins:
Evidence: 1/ Ground for belief or disbelief; data on which to base proof or establish truth or falsehood.
Chambers
Evidence: that which makes anything evident; means of proving an unknown or disputed fact; support (eg for a belief); indication; information in a law case; testimony; a witness or witnesses collectively
OED Concise
2/ Indication, Sign; ... testimony, facts, in support of ... a conclusion. ... 3/ (Law) Information (given personally or drawn from documents etc. ) tending to establish facts...
It seems that the dictionaries agree with me. Who agrees with your definition?
IMO Db you are always very precise and literal when it comes to facts and evidence. That's absolutely fine, but surely there comes a point where common sense, logic and reason does play a part especially when you are dealing with human beings.
I have never heard of any motive for the McCanns to dispose of their daughter - which does not involve ruling out all common sense, logic and reasoned thought at some point along the way.
These aspects may not qualify as 'evidence' as you would describe it, but they are important IMO when searching for the truth.
I don't expect you to agree with me.
-
So are we all agreed then that there is no evidence against the McCanns capable of sustaining any allegation of guilt in respect of any crime or criminal act??
But that is a completely different question which could be better phrased:
'There is no sustainable PROOF of the McCanns guilt'
Which is a completely different concept all together.
That's right, so what's the use of this debate ? Dropping the dead-end issue of the McCanns' guilt allows a lot of interesting issues to pop up.
-
So are we all agreed then that there is no evidence against the McCanns capable of sustaining any allegation of guilt in respect of any crime or criminal act??
But that is a completely different question which could be better phrased:
'There is no sustainable PROOF of the McCanns guilt'
Which is a completely different concept all together.
That's right, so what's the use of this debate ? Dropping the dead-end issue of the McCanns' guilt allows a lot of interesting issues to pop up.
The use of this debate is to stop silly [ censored word] from accusing pros of making silly statements. Pros should stop saying the (factually incorrect) mantra- 'There is no evidence against the McCanns"
-
So are we all agreed then that there is no evidence against the McCanns capable of sustaining any allegation of guilt in respect of any crime or criminal act??
But that is a completely different question which could be better phrased:
'There is no sustainable PROOF of the McCanns guilt'
Which is a completely different concept all together.
That's right, so what's the use of this debate ? Dropping the dead-end issue of the McCanns' guilt allows a lot of interesting issues to pop up.
The use of this debate is to stop silly [ censored word] from accusing pros of making silly statements. Pros should stop saying the (factually incorrect) mantra- 'There is no evidence against the McCanns"
How are you going to achieve that ?
-
So are we all agreed then that there is no evidence against the McCanns capable of sustaining any allegation of guilt in respect of any crime or criminal act??
But that is a completely different question which could be better phrased:
'There is no sustainable PROOF of the McCanns guilt'
Which is a completely different concept all together.
That's right, so what's the use of this debate ? Dropping the dead-end issue of the McCanns' guilt allows a lot of interesting issues to pop up.
The use of this debate is to stop silly [ censored word] from accusing pros of making silly statements. Pros should stop saying the (factually incorrect) mantra- 'There is no evidence against the McCanns"
How are you going to achieve that ?
Discussion and argument.
-
Again, the thread as I understand it to be asks for evidence against the McCann's.
Just in case any foreign speakers are having difficulty understanding this turn of phrase and for the sake of clarification, evidence against someone is evidence which at its highest is evidence which taken with other evidence or corroboration can prove guilt in a crime.
There is also evidence which can prove innocence and evidence which is neutral.
Seeing some unidentified person carrying a child in the street, hearing a child cry one evening, making slight errors in a time-line and holding inconclusive and uncorroborated DNA results are all neutral evidence and not evidence of a crime.
There is lots of evidence in the McCann case but none which can prove guilt in any crime thus there is no evidence against the McCann's, none whatsoever. The PJ know this to be true thus why they were unable to take the case any further.
Amaral claims that there is evidence of guilt but that is disputed and now forms the basis of a libel test.
-
Again, the thread as I understand it to be asks for evidence against the McCann's.
Just in case any foreign speakers are having difficulty understanding this turn of phrase and for the sake of clarification, evidence against someone is evidence which at its highest is evidence which taken with other evidence or corroboration can prove guilt in a crime.
There is also evidence which can prove innocence and evidence which is neutral.
Seeing some unidentified person carrying a child in the street, hearing a child cry one evening, making slight errors in a time-line and holding inconclusive and uncorroborated DNA results are all neutral evidence and not evidence of a crime.
There is lots of evidence in the McCann case but none which can prove guilt in any crime thus there is no evidence against the McCann's, none whatsoever. The PJ know this to be true thus why they were unable to take the case any further.
Amaral claims that there is evidence of guilt but that is disputed and will form the basis of a civil action in due course.
You are using the word 'evidence' in a way not supported by the various cites I have given.
No-one else has provided a cite; all that has been offered is personal views about what people want 'evidence' to mean in their own private language.
-
Again, the thread as I understand it to be asks for evidence against the McCann's.
Just in case any foreign speakers are having difficulty understanding this turn of phrase and for the sake of clarification, evidence against someone is evidence which at its highest is evidence which taken with other evidence or corroboration can prove guilt in a crime.
There is also evidence which can prove innocence and evidence which is neutral.
Seeing some unidentified person carrying a child in the street, hearing a child cry one evening, making slight errors in a time-line and holding inconclusive and uncorroborated DNA results are all neutral evidence and not evidence of a crime.
There is lots of evidence in the McCann case but none which can prove guilt in any crime thus there is no evidence against the McCann's, none whatsoever. The PJ know this to be true thus why they were unable to take the case any further.
Amaral claims that there is evidence of guilt but that is disputed and now forms the basis of a libel test.
What do you want the likes of me to say? There has never been any proof. And I am just about thoroughly pissed off with it all.
Mais En Y Var.
-
Again, the thread as I understand it to be asks for evidence against the McCann's.
Just in case any foreign speakers are having difficulty understanding this turn of phrase and for the sake of clarification, evidence against someone is evidence which at its highest is evidence which taken with other evidence or corroboration can prove guilt in a crime.
There is also evidence which can prove innocence and evidence which is neutral.
Seeing some unidentified person carrying a child in the street, hearing a child cry one evening, making slight errors in a time-line and holding inconclusive and uncorroborated DNA results are all neutral evidence and not evidence of a crime.
There is lots of evidence in the McCann case but none which can prove guilt in any crime thus there is no evidence against the McCann's, none whatsoever. The PJ know this to be true thus why they were unable to take the case any further.
Amaral claims that there is evidence of guilt but that is disputed and now forms the basis of a libel test.
You are confusing 'evidence' against the McCanns, with 'conclusive evidence' against them ( proof )
The dog alerts, for instance, were clear evidence against the McCanns ( they could not be incorporated into an abductor theory )
You may feel the dog evidence is questionable, or indeed, of no value at all without supporting forensic evidence
What you cannot do, though, is dismiss the existence of the evidence altogether
-
The dog alerts, for instance, were clear evidence against the McCanns
another cracker
people just get away with this don't they - say anything and sit back?
-
The dog alerts, for instance, were clear evidence against the McCanns
another cracker
people just get away with this don't they - say anything and sit back?
Why the compunction to disrupt threads with flippant adolescent jibes rather that logically constructed debate ?
-
You are now making it up icabodcrane. The dogs alerts are dog alerts, they are evidence that a dog can alert, nothing more.
That is a millions miles away from being able to say that they represent evidence against the McCann's or that they took part in some crime.
Debunker, do you understand how courts deal with evidence?
-
You are now making it up icabodcrane. The dogs alerts are dog alerts, they are evidence that a dog can alert, nothing more.
That is a millions miles away from being able to say that they represent evidence against the McCann's or that they took part in some crime.
Debunker, do you understand how courts deal with evidence?
Yes.
Do you understand what dictionaries say is meant by evidence?
-
I have never been a Debunker supporter, simply because i have never been so bloody right. And never been half so good a parent as he has been.
I might not even have wanted to be. My ghastly children were allowed to run free. Who ever wants to admit that they could have done better?
But Debunker is such a boring pain in the arse because he leaves us all wanting.
Ecoute mois.
-
John, there are dogs' alerts and there is tracker dogs' route.
-
You are now making it up icabodcrane. The dogs alerts are dog alerts, they are evidence that a dog can alert, nothing more.
That is a millions miles away from being able to say that they represent evidence against the McCann's or that they took part in some crime.
Debunker, do you understand how courts deal with evidence?
The dog alerts represent evidence
It is not evidence that can stand alone, and has to be supported by forensic evidence to be meaningful ... but it is 'evidence'
It is also, unquestionably, evidence against the McCanns, by virtue of the fact it supports the theory that the missing child died in the apartment, rather than her having been abducted
You may not be convinced by the evidence, but you cannot say it is not evidence simply because you are unconvinced by it
-
everytime a Bounty bar
some folks never learn
-
You are now making it up icabodcrane. The dogs alerts are dog alerts, they are evidence that a dog can alert, nothing more.
That is a millions miles away from being able to say that they represent evidence against the McCann's or that they took part in some crime.
Debunker, do you understand how courts deal with evidence?
The dog alerts represent evidence
It is not evidence that can stand alone, and has to be supported by forensic evidence to be meaningful ... but it is 'evidence'
It is also, unquestionably, evidence against the McCanns, by virtue of the fact it supports the theory that the missing child died in the apartment, rather than her having been abducted
You may not be convinced by the evidence, but you cannot say it is not evidence simply because you are unconvinced by it
Quite so
The irony is that even if keela corroborated eddies alerts they could all be passed off as blood which would only mean Maddie had nosebleeds eg so the frothing and denials bit silly lol
-
Corroborating presumptions are stronger that simple presumptions...
-
'The dog alerts represent evidence'
like they did in Jersey - eh? Same dogs, same handler, roughly the same pay cheque no doubt.
Same outcome, nada, zilch, rien, nichts
Evidence - my foot ?{)(**
-
'The dog alerts represent evidence'
like they did in Jersey - eh? Same dogs, same handler, roughly the same pay cheque no doubt.
Same outcome, nada, zilch, rien, nichts
Evidence - my foot ?{)(**
Is there any need for this any more?
-
'The dog alerts represent evidence'
like they did in Jersey - eh? Same dogs, same handler, roughly the same pay cheque no doubt.
Same outcome, nada, zilch, rien, nichts
Evidence - my foot ?{)(**
Is there any need for this any more?
What - FACTS?
Yes I think there is need for FACTS - rather than hearsay and conjecture
-
'The dog alerts represent evidence'
like they did in Jersey - eh? Same dogs, same handler, roughly the same pay cheque no doubt.
Same outcome, nada, zilch, rien, nichts
Evidence - my foot ?{)(**
Is there any need for this any more?
What - FACTS?
Yes I think there is need for FACTS - rather than hearsay and conjecture
I think I have lost the plot. And I don't think I really care anymore. But keep on doing the day job.
-
thank you for your kind permission
-
You guys are really cracking me up this evening...the entertainment value is spectacular. Some of your comments are so witty and amusing. Even Luz and debunker are speaking again!
Keep it up...BRILLIANT 8@??)(
-
You are now making it up icabodcrane. The dogs alerts are dog alerts, they are evidence that a dog can alert, nothing more.
That is a millions miles away from being able to say that they represent evidence against the McCann's or that they took part in some crime.
Debunker, do you understand how courts deal with evidence?
The dog alerts represent evidence
It is not evidence that can stand alone, and has to be supported by forensic evidence to be meaningful ... but it is 'evidence'
It is also, unquestionably, evidence against the McCanns, by virtue of the fact it supports the theory that the missing child died in the apartment, rather than her having been abducted
You may not be convinced by the evidence, but you cannot say it is not evidence simply because you are unconvinced by it
Quite so
The irony is that even if keeka corroborated eddies alerts they could all be passed off as blood which would only mean Maddie had nosebleeds eg so the frothing and denials bit silly lol
I think that you still don't understand the dog evidence. Keela does not 'corroborate' Eddie's alerts. If Eddie alerts and Keela does not, that is suggestive that the joint reaction is to cadaver not blood.
-
'The dog alerts represent evidence'
like they did in Jersey - eh? Same dogs, same handler, roughly the same pay cheque no doubt.
Same outcome, nada, zilch, rien, nichts
Evidence - my foot ?{)(**
Evidence means what the dictionary says, not what you want it to.
The evidence may be in error or just not of any use, but it is still evidence.
-
You guys are really cracking me up this evening...the entertainment value is spectacular. Some of your comments are so witty and amusing. Even Luz and debunker are speaking again!
Keep it up...BRILLIANT 8@??)(
I was not aware that I had communicated with Luz- must have been in my sleep. When I went to bed I was still awaiting her return to explain the PJ press release about Madeleine's coloboma.
-
I am looking forward to a post today in opposition to my contention, a post which uses evidence rather than claims, without foundation, that evidence means something different to what the three largest dictionaries of English say that it means.
As the saying goes
Cite please.
All that has been offered so far is special pleading for a personal use of the word.
-
Actually, Debunker, it would be interesting to see you develop this contention you made earlier in this thread:
Means, motive, opportunity.
Dog alerts to ?cadaver scent
Lack of alibi
Muddled time line
Smith sighting
All of that is included in the definition of evidence above.
It is pretty seriously deficient in probative force. But it is evidence all the same.
Given how long and hard - and cogently - you have argued in many threads on this board that without forensic corroboration the dog alerts produced nothing of evidential value, it would be interesting to see how you now argue against your own contentions.
-
Actually, Debunker, it would be interesting to see you develop this contention you made earlier in this thread:
Means, motive, opportunity.
Dog alerts to ?cadaver scent
Lack of alibi
Muddled time line
Smith sighting
All of that is included in the definition of evidence above.
It is pretty seriously deficient in probative force. But it is evidence all the same.
Given how long and hard - and cogently - you have argued in many threads on this board that without forensic corroboration the dog alerts produced nothing of evidential value, it would be interesting to see how you now argue against your own contentions.
"Evidential Value" is just that- evidence that is weighed and found to be supportive of a case.
I think back to my draft dodging days in the USA. The draft board had to accept any 'evidence' that a person had to be classified as not fit for Army service. The rules said that they had to retain such evidence. Many of us acquired house bricks and gave them to the local Draft board requiring them to rent extra storage to retain this evidence. The way the law was written, requiring all evidence (not just evidence with a connection to the case or with supportive value) to be retained was soon changed to use the word in a different way to avoid having to store bricks!!!
-
'The dog alerts represent evidence'
like they did in Jersey - eh? Same dogs, same handler, roughly the same pay cheque no doubt.
Same outcome, nada, zilch, rien, nichts
Evidence - my foot ?{)(**
Evidence means what the dictionary says, not what you want it to.
The evidence may be in error or just not of any use, but it is still evidence.
Debunker. Why are you labouring the term 'evidence' when this is not what this thread is about?? If I had wanted to discuss the evidence in the case I would have posted "What is the evidence in the McCann case?".
The thread is called "What is the evidence AGAINST" the McCanns" and it is my contention that there isn't any.
For the last time icabodcrane please stop using the dog alerts as if there is some association with the McCanns as this has never been proven. Stop making false claims.
The crying baby and the sightings of men carrying a child are all neutral evidence, again they have no proven connection to the McCanns. Kate and Gerry also have an iron clad alibi spoken to by many witnesses so to say alibi is some sort of evidence against them is pretty pathetic.
So let's try again, what is this magical evidence against the McCanns, evidencve which even the PJ were unable to find???
-
'The dog alerts represent evidence'
like they did in Jersey - eh? Same dogs, same handler, roughly the same pay cheque no doubt.
Same outcome, nada, zilch, rien, nichts
Evidence - my foot ?{)(**
Evidence means what the dictionary says, not what you want it to.
The evidence may be in error or just not of any use, but it is still evidence.
Debunker. Why are you labouring the term 'evidence' when this is not what this thread is about?? If I had wanted to discuss the evidence in the case I would have posted "What is the evidence in the McCann case?".
The thread is called "What is the evidence AGAINST" the McCanns" and it is my contention that there isn't any.
For the last time icabodcrane please stop using the dog alerts as if there is some association with the McCanns as this has never been proven. Stop making false claims.
The crying baby and the sightings of men carrying a child are all neutral evidence, again they have no proven connection to the McCanns. Kate and Gerry also have an iron clad alibi spoken to by many witnesses so to say alibi is some sort of evidence against them is pretty pathetic.
So let's try again, what is this magical evidence against the McCanns, evidencve which even the PJ were unable to find???
You are still mis-using the word evidence.
Look in a dictionary.
The basic evidence against the McCanns is Means and Opportunity.
-
The basic evidence against the McCanns is Means and Opportunity.
Right - so you have said earlier. So let's be having these means and opportunity. And what happened to motive?
-
Is there, perhaps, a semantic distinction between evidence and suspicion?
If we concede Debunker's semantic point that there is evidence against the McCanns, can we say that there is no evidence leading to suspicion?
-
The basic evidence against the McCanns is Means and Opportunity.
Right - so you have said earlier. So let's be having these means and opportunity. And what happened to motive?
You don't need all three.
For instance, motive is totally missing from offences such as Manslaughter as there is no necessity to prove mens rea.
Means and opportunity are two pillars of evidence. There is such evidence against the McCanns.
-
For instance, motive is totally missing from offences such as Manslaughter as there is no necessity to prove mens rea.
Untrue.
Manslaughter is not a crime of strict liability.
-
For instance, motive is totally missing from offences such as Manslaughter as there is no necessity to prove mens rea.
Untrue.
Manslaughter is not a crime of strict liability.
I really don't think the board would be interested in the rules applying the concept of mens rea to manslaughter which are somewhat arcane. Some Manslaughter verdicts require mens rea, some do not.
Strict liability is something altogether different- statutory rape for instance, or the Factory Act etc.
Please do not insist on a dialogue as I can bore for England on this subject which I used to teach as part of a Mental Illness and the Law course.
-
Involuntary maslaughter, indeed, doesn't require mens rea:
Constructive manslaughter, a form of involuntary manslaughter, describes a death at another's hands during the course of an unlawful act. Though malice is involved in the crime, the killing was not the source of the malice. For example, a recently fired, disgruntled employee returns to his old office to destroy his old computer. If, as a result, someone is hit in the head with the baseball bat as he swings it at the computer, or someone is electrocuted when trying to repair the computer, that disgruntled employee can be charged with involuntary homicide.
-
Please don't encourage a debate on this subject. It is one of my specialties.
-
Please don't encourage a debate on this subject. It is one of my specialties.
Enough about YOU
reply to the post kindly
-
Please don't encourage a debate on this subject. It is one of my specialties.
Enough about YOU
reply to the post kindly
Please don't call me 'kindly'
-
sorry 'Hero Member'
that's your official title I take it?
-
The basic evidence against the McCanns is Means and Opportunity.
Right - so you have said earlier. So let's be having these means and opportunity. And what happened to motive?
You don't need all three.
For instance, motive is totally missing from offences such as Manslaughter as there is no necessity to prove mens rea.
Means and opportunity are two pillars of evidence. There is such evidence against the McCanns.
Spell it out then...where?
listens for the ruffle of dictionary pages @)(++(*
-
sorry 'Hero Member'
that's your official title I take it?
Yes, as yours in Junior member. Should you hit 1000 posts I am sure that you too will see that pop up by your name- 500 I think for full member.
Stop being silly!
-
The basic evidence against the McCanns is Means and Opportunity.
Right - so you have said earlier. So let's be having these means and opportunity. And what happened to motive?
You don't need all three.
For instance, motive is totally missing from offences such as Manslaughter as there is no necessity to prove mens rea.
Means and opportunity are two pillars of evidence. There is such evidence against the McCanns.
Spell it out then...where?
Do you not understand simple English words.
Means- they were physically able to either kill or dispose of Madeleine- they had the means.
Opportunity- they were in contact with her long enough to do so.
I don't believe for one moment that any of the above happens, but having means and opportunity are basic elements of EVIDENCE when that word is used properly.
There is EVIDENCE of means and Opportunity against them as they were capable and present in a way there is no evidence of means and opportunity against me because I can prove that I was in Scotland all of the first five months of 2007.
-
What evidence Debunker???
-
What evidence Debunker???
That they had the means and opportunity.
You really don't get this dictionary thing, do you?
-
Wise up for heavens sake....everyone in the Ocean club had the same means and opportunity. I want to see your evidence which sets the McCanns apart from the rest.
You wouldnt make a very good lawyer would you debunker?? @)(++(*
-
Apologies for using Wikipedia but it is at least clear and concise:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Means,_motive,_and_opportunity
"In US Criminal law, means, motive, and opportunity is a popular cultural summation of the three aspects of a crime that must be established before guilt can be determined in a criminal proceeding. Respectively, they refer to: the ability of the defendant to commit the crime (means), the reason the defendant felt the need to commit the crime (motive), and whether or not the defendant had the chance to commit the crime (opportunity). Opportunity is most often disproved by use of an alibi, which can prove the accused was not able to commit the crime as he or she did not have the correct set of circumstances to commit the crime as it occurred. Motive is not an element of many crimes, but proving motive can often make it easier to convince a jury of the elements that must be proved for a conviction.
Establishing the presence of these three elements is not, in and of itself, sufficient to convict beyond a reasonable doubt; the evidence must prove that an opportunity presented was indeed taken by the accused and for the crime with which he or she is charged."
Evidence equals facts
Evidence against means any facts that might be used to try to prove guilt
If the evidence is good enough, it becaomes proof; if it is not, it remains evidence.
-
Naughty Angello... hook and worm?
Portugal isn't in the USA last time we looked Debunker.
-
Wise up for heavens sake....everyone in the Ocean club had the same means and opportunity. I want to see your evidence which sets the McCanns apart from the rest.
You wouldnt make a very good lawyer would you debunker?? @)(++(*
No, but I have taught law affecting the Mental Health Act, and various other aspects of the Law necessary for people treating people with mental illness.
Yes, they all had means and opportunity as I have stated above. That is evidence against them. The same can be said of the McCanns.
Evidence does not have to be proof. Evidence is merely facts or allegations that may be used to attempt to prove something.
That is what the dictionaries say.
-
Naughty Angello... hook and worm?
Portugal isn't in the USA last time we looked Debunker.
Sorry 8(8-))
Debunker has totally failed to provide any evidence against the McCanns so I propose making this a myth.
Last time I looked it was a court of law which these issue relate to and not a mental hospital.
-
I did suggest a possible compromise on another thread that got lost, I think, a semantic distinction between evidence and suspicion.
Can we, perhaps, concede that there is evidence that doesn't lead to suspicion?
-
Naughty Angello... hook and worm?
Portugal isn't in the USA last time we looked Debunker.
Sorry 8(8-))
Debunker has totally failed to provide any evidence against the McCanns so I propose making this a myth.
Last time I looked it was a court of law which these issue relate to and not a mental hospital.
That's got my vote
a little knowledge is a dangerous thing
-
Naughty Angello... hook and worm?
Portugal isn't in the USA last time we looked Debunker.
All of these three concepts occur in English and Welsh Law and in Continental Law.
In order for someone to be found guilty of a criome they necessarily need to have the ability to do so, the time span to do it; this goes back beyond Roman Law to Classical Greece, Eygyptian Laws and even to Hammurabi.
If the prosecution cannot prove ability and opportunity, no crime exists. Therefore facts about means and opportunity are evidence (as defined in the dictionaries and in Law!)
-
I did suggest a possible compromise on another thread that got lost, I think, a semantic distinction between evidence and suspicion.
Can we, perhaps, concede that there is evidence that doesn't lead to suspicion?
There is evidence everywhere and different people interpret it in a million different ways. What I am looking for is evidence which could bring the McCanns to court to answer for an alleged crime. My point is that there isnt any.
-
Legal Dictionary definition:
Any matter of fact that a party to a lawsuit offers to prove or disprove an issue in the case.
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/evidence
-
HARD EVIDENCE good fellow not hearsay.
I would just love to see the judges face if you were to walk into court and when asked what evidence of a crime you have you offer means and motive. @)(++(*
-
Legal Dictionary definition:
Any matter of fact that a party to a lawsuit offers to prove or disprove an issue in the case.
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/evidence
Do you sell dictionaries?
Can I get a discount?
-
I did suggest a possible compromise on another thread that got lost, I think, a semantic distinction between evidence and suspicion.
Can we, perhaps, concede that there is evidence that doesn't lead to suspicion?
There is evidence everywhere and different people interpret it in a million different ways. What I am looking for is evidence which could bring the McCanns to court to answer for an alleged crime. My point is that there isnt any.
In that case start a thread which asks:
"What is the evidence that could bring the McCanns to court to answer for an alleged crime"
and I will post there that the evidence is mighty thin and unconvincing.
But the answer to the question posed by this thread is as I have stated above.
I am the only poster that has not posted merely their opinion, but also provided cites to what the term means in the real and legal world.
-
Legal Dictionary definition:
Any matter of fact that a party to a lawsuit offers to prove or disprove an issue in the case.
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/evidence
Do you sell dictionaries?
Can I get a discount?
Wikipedia isnt even a proper dictionary in any event. Just a collection of thoughts and ideas.
The term EVIDENCE is not in dispute but the way you are using it is.
-
Legal Dictionary definition:
Any matter of fact that a party to a lawsuit offers to prove or disprove an issue in the case.
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/evidence
Do you sell dictionaries?
Can I get a discount?
Can you read English.
Do you understand why cites are necessary and unsupported opinion means nothing?
-
Lets keep cool lads. ?>)()<
-
Legal Dictionary definition:
Any matter of fact that a party to a lawsuit offers to prove or disprove an issue in the case.
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/evidence
Do you sell dictionaries?
Can I get a discount?
Wikipedia isnt even a proper dictionary in any event. Just a collection of thoughts and ideas.
The term EVIDENCE is not in dispute but the way you are using it is.
I was referring to my previous cites up this thread from Collins, Chambers and the Shorter Oxford Dictionaries that all agree with what I am saying.
-
Legal Dictionary definition:
Any matter of fact that a party to a lawsuit offers to prove or disprove an issue in the case.
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/evidence
Do you sell dictionaries?
Can I get a discount?
Wikipedia isnt even a proper dictionary in any event. Just a collection of thoughts and ideas.
quite - quoting Wiki is akin to Godwin's law
the poster has basically forfeited his/her argument
-
Will continue this later chaps. 8(0(*
-
HARD EVIDENCE good fellow not hearsay.
I would just love to see the judges face if you were to walk into court and when asked what evidence of a crime you have you offer means and motive. @)(++(*
Hearsay is evidence, generally not admissible in court, but evidence all the same.
If you want that question answered then ask that question.
Start a thread saying "What evidence has been produced against the McCanns which is admissible in court" and I will join to say that means and opportunity are but hearsay generally is not.
-
Legal Dictionary definition:
Any matter of fact that a party to a lawsuit offers to prove or disprove an issue in the case.
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/evidence
Do you sell dictionaries?
Can I get a discount?
Wikipedia isnt even a proper dictionary in any event. Just a collection of thoughts and ideas.
quite - quoting Wiki is akin to Godwin's law
the poster has basically forfeited his/her argument
Not true at all. I have also quoted formal sources but people do not seem to understand the complex ideas there, so I apologised and resorted to Wikipedia. I will hammer in a few more nails proving my contention and then I will wait until someone produces anything other than opionion to try to prove their point.
-
HARD EVIDENCE good fellow not hearsay.
I would just love to see the judges face if you were to walk into court and when asked what evidence of a crime you have you offer means and motive. @)(++(*
Hearsay is evidence, generally not admissible in court, but evidence all the same.
If you want that question answered then ask that question.
Start a thread saying "What evidence has been produced against the McCanns which is admissible in court" and I will join to say that means and opportunity are but hearsay generally is not.
whatever
next time you post anything of substance - not relying on Wiki - let me know
-
I did suggest a possible compromise on another thread that got lost, I think, a semantic distinction between evidence and suspicion.
Can we, perhaps, concede that there is evidence that doesn't lead to suspicion?
There is evidence everywhere and different people interpret it in a million different ways. What I am looking for is evidence which could bring the McCanns to court to answer for an alleged crime. My point is that there isnt any.
Agreed.
Even in Scotland, where uncorroborated dog alerts are permitted, I don't believe the alerts in the Madeleine investigation would have been permitted.
-
Law 101: Evidence, admissible evidence, probative value and so on outlined.
"One important benchmark of admissibility is relevance. Federal Rule of Evidence 402 states, in part, "All relevant evidence is admissible, except as otherwise provided." The goal of this rule is to allow parties to present all of the evidence that bears on the issue to be decided, and to keep out all evidence that is immaterial or that lacks Probative value. Evidence that is offered to help prove something that is not at issue is immaterial. For example, the fact that a defendant attends church every week is immaterial, and thus irrelevant, to a charge of running a red light. Probative value is a tendency to make the existence of any material fact more or less probable. For instance, evidence that a murder defendant ate spaghetti on the day of the murder would normally be irrelevant because people who eat spaghetti are not more or less likely to commit murder, as compared with other people. However, if spaghetti sauce were found at the murder scene, the fact that the defendant ate spaghetti that day would have probative value and thus would be relevant evidence."
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/evidence
Probative Evidence (as opposed to non-probative evidence which is still nevertheless evidence)
One key element for the admission of evidence is whether it proves or helps prove a fact or issue. If so, the evidence is deemed probative. Probative evidence establishes or contributes to proof.
Probative facts are data that have the effect of proving an issue or other information. Probative facts establish the existence of other facts. They are matters of evidence that make the existence of something more probable or less probable than it would be without them. They are admissible as evidence and aid the court in the final resolution of a disputed issue. For example, in the case of a motor vehicle accident, a witness's testimony that she saw one automobile enter the intersection on a red light is a probative fact about whether the driver was at fault.
Evidence has probative value if it tends to prove an issue. However, probative value may refer to whether the evidence is admissible. Rules of evidence generally state that relevant evidence, which tends to prove or disprove an alleged fact, may be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, or misleading the jury, or by considerations of undue delay, waste of time, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence. A trial court must use a Balancing test to make this determination, but rules of evidence generally require that relevant evidence with probative value be excluded only if it is substantially outweighed by one of the dangers described in the rule.
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Probative
-
http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/evidence
the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid:
the study finds little evidence of overt discrimination
Law information drawn from personal testimony, a document, or a material object, used to establish facts in a legal investigation or admissible as testimony in a law court:
without evidence, they can’t bring a charge
signs or indications of something:
there was no obvious evidence of a break-in
-
http://law.yourdictionary.com/evidence
A thing, a document, or the testimony of a person that bears on the truth or falsity of an assertion made in litigation; the totality of such items introduced in a trial; the legal doctrines pertaining to the admission, use, and evaluation of such items.
character evidence
Evidence attesting to oneÂ’s character and moral standing in the community; character witnessed to attest to same. See also reputation witness.
competent evidence
Evidence that pertains to the matters being decided by the court and that may be considered by the court under the applicable rules of evidence.
cumulative evidence
Additional evidence that tends to prove the same assertions as evidence already admitted.
demonstrative evidence
Visual evidence, such as a chart, image, or model, prepared by attorneys or consultants, that demonstrates or clarifies information relevant to the trial.
direct evidence
Evidence based on the witnessÂ’ personal observation of events.
documentary evidence
Documents introduced as evidence.
evidence in chief
Evidence supporting the basic premises of a partyÂ’s case.
extrinsic evidence
Evidence pertaining to a contract and contradicting or supplementing its terms. Extrinsic evidence is not permitted where the contract is unambiguous.
opinion evidence
A witness's personal opinion about the facts of the dispute.
real evidence
Tangible evidence directly involved in the underlying events of the case.
rebuttal evidence
Evidence offered to contradict the other party's assertions.
Webster's New World Law Dictionary Copyright © 2010 by Wiley Publishing, Inc., Hoboken, New Jersey.
Used by arrangement with John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
-
http://www.insitelawmagazine.com/evidencech2.htm
(1) THE MEANING OF EVIDENCE
Of the eight uses of the term "evidence" in ordinary parlance , only three are relevant in legal parlance. The first defines the term by presenting a complex picture and the importance of the context:
"The available facts, circumstances, etc. supporting or otherwise a belief, proposition, etc., or indicating whether or not a thing is true or valid."
This definition suggests that argument and evidence are interconnected. But there is a distinction between "an argument" and "evidence": An "argument" is the statement of reasons leading to a conclusion which involves an inference or a deduction whilst evidence is concerned with facts and proof of facts or statistical and experimental data. For example, a person found in possession of stolen goods soon after the theft is presumed to be either the thief or the receiver. But this is a stereotyped conclusion which could be displaced by testimony proving the accused's innocence. Furthermore, a belief is a personal matter since it is difficult for the non-believer to share the belief and as Wittgenstein reminds us: "It is clear that there are no grounds for believing that the simplest eventuality will in fact be realized.”
The second definition specifies the use to which evidence is put:
"Information, whether in the form of personal testimony, the language of documents, or the production of material objects, that is given in a legal investigation, to establish the fact or point in question."
The third definition describes what counts as evidence: "a document by means of which a fact is established". Historically, the third definition is very limited in scope since in civil and criminal proceedings we rely on more than just documentary evidence.
In legal parlance, therefore, textwriters have adopted variants of the second definition or a combination of the second and third definitions instantiated above. Cross defines evidence of a fact "as that which tends to prove it - something which may satisfy an inquirer of the fact's existence". Stephen's definition shows that there are precise requirements for the legal admissibility of evidentiary facts in a court of law. "Evidence", according to Stephen, means:
"(1) Statements made by witnesses in court under a legal sanction, in relation to matters of fact under inquiry;
such statements are called evidence;
(2) Documents produced for the inspection of the Court or judge;
such statements are called documentary evidence."
Adopting a position not too dissimilar to the second definition instantiated above, Twining opines:
"[E]vidence is the means of proving or disproving facts, or of testing the truth of allegations of fact, in situations in which the triers of fact have no first-hand knowledge of the events or situations about which they have to decide what happened ... 'evidence' is information from which further information is derived or inferred in a variety of contexts for a variety of purposes."
As the definitions proffered by Cross, Stephen and Twining are silent on the quality of fact or information offered, it is submitted that any material or fact which is sufficiently reliable and cogent (i.e. weighty) may be regarded as evidence.
AND SEVERAL MORE PARAGRAPHS
-
Law 101: Evidence, admissible evidence, probative value and so on outlined.
"One important benchmark of admissibility is relevance. Federal Rule of Evidence 402 states, in part, "All relevant evidence is admissible, except as otherwise provided." The goal of this rule is to allow parties to present all of the evidence that bears on the issue to be decided, and to keep out all evidence that is immaterial or that lacks Probative value. Evidence that is offered to help prove something that is not at issue is immaterial. For example, the fact that a defendant attends church every week is immaterial, and thus irrelevant, to a charge of running a red light. Probative value is a tendency to make the existence of any material fact more or less probable. For instance, evidence that a murder defendant ate spaghetti on the day of the murder would normally be irrelevant because people who eat spaghetti are not more or less likely to commit murder, as compared with other people. However, if spaghetti sauce were found at the murder scene, the fact that the defendant ate spaghetti that day would have probative value and thus would be relevant evidence."
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/evidence
Probative Evidence (as opposed to non-probative evidence which is still nevertheless evidence)
One key element for the admission of evidence is whether it proves or helps prove a fact or issue. If so, the evidence is deemed probative. Probative evidence establishes or contributes to proof.
Probative facts are data that have the effect of proving an issue or other information. Probative facts establish the existence of other facts. They are matters of evidence that make the existence of something more probable or less probable than it would be without them. They are admissible as evidence and aid the court in the final resolution of a disputed issue. For example, in the case of a motor vehicle accident, a witness's testimony that she saw one automobile enter the intersection on a red light is a probative fact about whether the driver was at fault.
Evidence has probative value if it tends to prove an issue. However, probative value may refer to whether the evidence is admissible. Rules of evidence generally state that relevant evidence, which tends to prove or disprove an alleged fact, may be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, or misleading the jury, or by considerations of undue delay, waste of time, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence. A trial court must use a Balancing test to make this determination, but rules of evidence generally require that relevant evidence with probative value be excluded only if it is substantially outweighed by one of the dangers described in the rule.
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Probative
That's American law you are citing, Debunker ...
-
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/evidence
ev·i·dence [ev-i-duhns] Show IPA noun, verb, ev·i·denced, ev·i·denc·ing.
noun
1.
that which tends to prove or disprove something; ground for belief; proof.
2.
something that makes plain or clear; an indication or sign: His flushed look was visible evidence of his fever.
3.
Law. data presented to a court or jury in proof of the facts in issue and which may include the testimony of witnesses, records, documents, or objects.
-
lovely waste of bandwidth
if you can't sum it up in one or two sentences, debunker
it's probably not worth reading chum
So you are not happy with Wikipedia and reference to detailed cites are beyond your comprehension.
I can sum it up in one simple sentence that is supported by EVERY cite above
Evidence is any fact, statement or object that may be produced to attempt to prove or disprove a contention.
-
Law 101: Evidence, admissible evidence, probative value and so on outlined.
"One important benchmark of admissibility is relevance. Federal Rule of Evidence 402 states, in part, "All relevant evidence is admissible, except as otherwise provided." The goal of this rule is to allow parties to present all of the evidence that bears on the issue to be decided, and to keep out all evidence that is immaterial or that lacks Probative value. Evidence that is offered to help prove something that is not at issue is immaterial. For example, the fact that a defendant attends church every week is immaterial, and thus irrelevant, to a charge of running a red light. Probative value is a tendency to make the existence of any material fact more or less probable. For instance, evidence that a murder defendant ate spaghetti on the day of the murder would normally be irrelevant because people who eat spaghetti are not more or less likely to commit murder, as compared with other people. However, if spaghetti sauce were found at the murder scene, the fact that the defendant ate spaghetti that day would have probative value and thus would be relevant evidence."
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/evidence
Probative Evidence (as opposed to non-probative evidence which is still nevertheless evidence)
One key element for the admission of evidence is whether it proves or helps prove a fact or issue. If so, the evidence is deemed probative. Probative evidence establishes or contributes to proof.
Probative facts are data that have the effect of proving an issue or other information. Probative facts establish the existence of other facts. They are matters of evidence that make the existence of something more probable or less probable than it would be without them. They are admissible as evidence and aid the court in the final resolution of a disputed issue. For example, in the case of a motor vehicle accident, a witness's testimony that she saw one automobile enter the intersection on a red light is a probative fact about whether the driver was at fault.
Evidence has probative value if it tends to prove an issue. However, probative value may refer to whether the evidence is admissible. Rules of evidence generally state that relevant evidence, which tends to prove or disprove an alleged fact, may be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, or misleading the jury, or by considerations of undue delay, waste of time, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence. A trial court must use a Balancing test to make this determination, but rules of evidence generally require that relevant evidence with probative value be excluded only if it is substantially outweighed by one of the dangers described in the rule.
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Probative
That's American law you are citing, Debunker ...
We share a common law tradition. US law is based on English Law of the sixteenth century.
The concepts of evidence are however universal and cover common law and Continental Law regardless.
-
lovely waste of bandwidth
if you can't sum it up in one or two sentences, debunker
it's probably not worth reading chum
So you are not happy with Wikipedia and reference to detailed cites are beyond your comprehension.
I can sum it up in one simple sentence that is supported by EVERY cite above
Evidence is any fact, statement or object that may be produced to attempt to prove or disprove a contention.
3 sentences - try again
-
lovely waste of bandwidth
if you can't sum it up in one or two sentences, debunker
it's probably not worth reading chum
So you are not happy with Wikipedia and reference to detailed cites are beyond your comprehension.
I can sum it up in one simple sentence that is supported by EVERY cite above
Evidence is any fact, statement or object that may be produced to attempt to prove or disprove a contention.
3 sentences - try again
So you cannot count either:
"Evidence is any fact, statement or object that may be produced to attempt to prove or disprove a contention."
was the sentence referred to.
-
'The dog alerts represent evidence'
like they did in Jersey - eh? Same dogs, same handler, roughly the same pay cheque no doubt.
Same outcome, nada, zilch, rien, nichts
Evidence - my foot ?{)(**
Evidence means what the dictionary says, not what you want it to.
The evidence may be in error or just not of any use, but it is still evidence.
Debunker. Why are you labouring the term 'evidence' when this is not what this thread is about?? If I had wanted to discuss the evidence in the case I would have posted "What is the evidence in the McCann case?".
The thread is called "What is the evidence AGAINST" the McCanns" and it is my contention that there isn't any.
For the last time icabodcrane please stop using the dog alerts as if there is some association with the McCanns as this has never been proven. Stop making false claims.
The crying baby and the sightings of men carrying a child are all neutral evidence, again they have no proven connection to the McCanns. Kate and Gerry also have an iron clad alibi spoken to by many witnesses so to say alibi is some sort of evidence against them is pretty pathetic.
So let's try again, what is this magical evidence against the McCanns, evidencve which even the PJ were unable to find???
You keep asking for evidence, yet, when it is presented to you, you reject it because you are not convinced by it personally
Evidence does not have to be convincing in order to be evidence
Take Jane Tanner's sighting of the 'abductor' for instance. Her witness statement contradicts other witness statements, and the likelihood of her being able to distinguish small details, like the design on the leg of the child's pyjamas, at that distance and in darkness, is remote
Unconvincing evidence, in my opinion ... but evidence nevertheless
As to your statement about the dogs' evidence, there is a very clear 'association' with the McCanns
Their child goes missing and they tell police she has been 'abducted'
A cadaver dog is brought in, and alerts in the apartment where the child was last seen
There is the association
You may consider that no corrorborating forensic evidence leaves the dogs' evidence unproven and reject it as unconvincing
Jane Tanners sighting of an abductor remains unproven, and may be rejected as unreliable, but it is still evidence that an abduction may have occured
By the same token, the dogs evidence remains unproven, and may be rejected as unreliable, but it is still evidence that a death in the apartment may have occured
Evidence does not have to be 'proven' in order to be deemed evidence
-
'The dog alerts represent evidence'
like they did in Jersey - eh? Same dogs, same handler, roughly the same pay cheque no doubt.
Same outcome, nada, zilch, rien, nichts
Evidence - my foot ?{)(**
Evidence means what the dictionary says, not what you want it to.
The evidence may be in error or just not of any use, but it is still evidence.
Debunker. Why are you labouring the term 'evidence' when this is not what this thread is about?? If I had wanted to discuss the evidence in the case I would have posted "What is the evidence in the McCann case?".
The thread is called "What is the evidence AGAINST" the McCanns" and it is my contention that there isn't any.
For the last time icabodcrane please stop using the dog alerts as if there is some association with the McCanns as this has never been proven. Stop making false claims.
The crying baby and the sightings of men carrying a child are all neutral evidence, again they have no proven connection to the McCanns. Kate and Gerry also have an iron clad alibi spoken to by many witnesses so to say alibi is some sort of evidence against them is pretty pathetic.
So let's try again, what is this magical evidence against the McCanns, evidencve which even the PJ were unable to find???
You keep asking for evidence, yet, when it is presented to you, you reject it because you are not convinced by it personally
Evidence does not have to be convincing in order to be evidence
Take Jane Tanner's sighting of the 'abductor' for instance. Her witness statement contradicts other witness statements, and the likelihood of her being able to distinguish small details, like the design on the leg of the child's pyjamas, at that distance and in darkness, is remote
Unconvincing evidence, in my opinion ... but evidence nevertheless
As to your statement about the dogs' evidence, there is a very clear 'association' with the McCanns
Their child goes missing and they tell police she has been 'abducted'
A cadaver dog is brought in, and alerts in the apartment where the child was last seen
There is the association
You may consider that no corrorborating forensic evidence leaves the dogs' evidence unproven and reject it as unconvincing
Jane Tanners sighting of an abductor remains unproven, and may be rejected as unreliable, but it is still evidence that an abduction may have occured
By the same token, the dogs evidence remains unproven, and may be rejected as unreliable, but it is still evidence that a death in the apartment may have occured
Evidence does not have to be 'proven' in order to be deemed evidence
If you do, then you are, again, rejecting evidence on the basis that it is unconvincing ... but evidence it remains ( whether convincing or not )
May as well give up.
I reduced it to the simplest possible piece of evidence- means and opportunity, and they still could not understand it.
-
Still waiting for the first post with a cite rather than an opinion.
-
Still waiting for the first post with a cite rather than an opinion.
Like you cite Wikipedia?
hero member
-
You keep asking for evidence, yet, when it is presented to you, you reject it because you are not convinced by it personally
Evidence does not have to be convincing in order to be evidence
Take Jane Tanner's sighting of the 'abductor' for instance. Her witness statement contradicts other witness statements, and the likelihood of her being able to distinguish small details, like the design on the leg of the child's pyjamas, at that distance and in darkness, is remote
Unconvincing evidence, in my opinion ... but evidence nevertheless
As to your statement about the dogs' evidence, there is a very clear 'association' with the McCanns
Their child goes missing and they tell police she has been 'abducted'
A cadaver dog is brought in, and alerts in the apartment where the child was last seen
There is the association
You may consider that no corroborating forensic evidence leaves the dogs' evidence unproven and reject it as unconvincing
Jane Tanners sighting of an abductor remains unproven, and may be rejected as unreliable, but it is still evidence that an abduction may have occured
By the same token, the dogs evidence remains unproven, and may be rejected as unreliable, but it is still evidence that a death in the apartment may have occured
Evidence does not have to be 'proven' in order to be deemed evidence
Absolutely agree that all which you have posted is evidence of one sort or another.
However, what is being asked for on this thread is evidence against the McCann's or to put it another way, evidence of a criminal wrongdoing.
-
You keep asking for evidence, yet, when it is presented to you, you reject it because you are not convinced by it personally
Evidence does not have to be convincing in order to be evidence
Take Jane Tanner's sighting of the 'abductor' for instance. Her witness statement contradicts other witness statements, and the likelihood of her being able to distinguish small details, like the design on the leg of the child's pyjamas, at that distance and in darkness, is remote
Unconvincing evidence, in my opinion ... but evidence nevertheless
As to your statement about the dogs' evidence, there is a very clear 'association' with the McCanns
Their child goes missing and they tell police she has been 'abducted'
A cadaver dog is brought in, and alerts in the apartment where the child was last seen
There is the association
You may consider that no corroborating forensic evidence leaves the dogs' evidence unproven and reject it as unconvincing
Jane Tanners sighting of an abductor remains unproven, and may be rejected as unreliable, but it is still evidence that an abduction may have occured
By the same token, the dogs evidence remains unproven, and may be rejected as unreliable, but it is still evidence that a death in the apartment may have occured
Evidence does not have to be 'proven' in order to be deemed evidence
Absolutely agree that all which you have posted is evidence of one sort or another.
However, what is being asked for on this thread is evidence against the McCann's or to put it another way, evidence of a criminal wrongdoing.
Every cite I have given states in one way or another that EVIDENCE is not to be confused with ADMISSIBLE or PROBATIVE EVIDENCE!
You need a different thread if that is what you want.
Go back, calmly, read the facts that I have posted, then tell me that any fact or object (whether admissible, probative or not) is evidence per se.
-
I'm listening, Debunker, but I think we're all getting lost in semantics.
If you mean that e.g., the fact that Kate's fingerprints were found on the window could be used as evidence against her in a Bongabongaland prosecution, then yes, I suppose it could be.
-
And I really don't care whether I become a 'hero member' on this forum like Debunker
regardless of number of posts
-
OK, well let's take the dogs' evidence first
We agree it is 'evidence' ( not conclusive or reliable without supporting forensic evidence, but evidence nonetheless )
So now we question whether it is evidence 'against' the McCanns, ( or of criminal wrong-doing on their part )
I would say, it most certainly is
The dogs' evidence, whilst inconclusive, suggests there is a possibility that the missing child was not abducted at all ... that she may have died, there in the apartment
The evidence, therefore, is not supportive of the McCann's stated position ... it is directly against it
-
same dogs/same handler
alerted to a coconut shell in Jersey
handler (Grime) pocketed 90k
Bob's your uncle
-
same dogs/same handler
alerted to a coconut shell in Jersey
handler (Grime) pocketed 90k
Bob's your uncle
Yep!
And to be clear, that is not tabloid hype.
It is confirmed in an official report of Wiltshire police about the Haut de la Garenne inquiry.
-
Hmmm. Eddie didn't just alert at a coconut that humans assumed to be a bit of skull. That's not quite fair.
-
I'm listening, Debunker, but I think we're all getting lost in semantics.
If you mean that e.g., the fact that Kate's fingerprints were found on the window could be used as evidence against her in a Bongabongaland prosecution, then yes, I suppose it could be.
Yes. that is evidence that could be used against her.
All the cites I have given cover this, but people are so certain that their incorrect beliefs are correct, the information is not going in
-
You keep asking for evidence, yet, when it is presented to you, you reject it because you are not convinced by it personally
Evidence does not have to be convincing in order to be evidence
Take Jane Tanner's sighting of the 'abductor' for instance. Her witness statement contradicts other witness statements, and the likelihood of her being able to distinguish small details, like the design on the leg of the child's pyjamas, at that distance and in darkness, is remote
Unconvincing evidence, in my opinion ... but evidence nevertheless
As to your statement about the dogs' evidence, there is a very clear 'association' with the McCanns
Their child goes missing and they tell police she has been 'abducted'
A cadaver dog is brought in, and alerts in the apartment where the child was last seen
There is the association
You may consider that no corroborating forensic evidence leaves the dogs' evidence unproven and reject it as unconvincing
Jane Tanners sighting of an abductor remains unproven, and may be rejected as unreliable, but it is still evidence that an abduction may have occured
By the same token, the dogs evidence remains unproven, and may be rejected as unreliable, but it is still evidence that a death in the apartment may have occured
Evidence does not have to be 'proven' in order to be deemed evidence
Absolutely agree that all which you have posted is evidence of one sort or another.
However, what is being asked for on this thread is evidence against the McCann's or to put it another way, evidence of a criminal wrongdoing.
OK, well let's take the dogs' evidence first
We agree it is 'evidence' ( not conclusive or reliable without supporting forensic evidence, but evidence nonetheless )
So now we question whether it is evidence 'against' the McCanns, ( or of criminal wrong-doing on their part )
I would say, it most certainly is
The dogs' evidence, whilst inconclusive, suggests there is a possibility that the missing child was not abducted at all ... that she may have died, there in the apartment
The evidence, therefore, is not supportive of the McCann's stated position ... it is directly against it
Exactly. Can these people not read and comprehend?
-
what are you saying - if you are actually saying anything?
-
what are you saying - if you are actually saying anything?
Evidence is any statement, object or other material that may be used to prove a case against someone.
That is what all the cites say.
-
Hmmm. Eddie didn't just alert at a coconut that humans assumed to be a bit of skull. That's not quite fair.
He made lots of other alerts in Jersey as well.
But it is clearly stated in an extract you yourself found that a human spotted what he took to be a skull, was given to Eddie to test (in much the same way as he tested an ignition key in PdL) and which produced a reaction suggestive of cadaver odour ...
-
Hmmm. Eddie didn't just alert at a coconut that humans assumed to be a bit of skull. That's not quite fair.
He made lots of other alerts in Jersey as well.
But it is clearly stated in an extract you yourself found that a human spotted what he took to be a skull, was given to Eddie to test (in much the same way as he tested an ignition key in PdL) and which produced a reaction suggestive of cadaver odour ...
the wonderdogs can bark and wag their tails until the cows come home
no doing until their alerts are backed up by scientific proof
Grime failed both in Luz and Jersey - did he ever pay back his substantial earnings for
a piece of pseudo - science?
I think not
-
Hmmm. Eddie didn't just alert at a coconut that humans assumed to be a bit of skull. That's not quite fair.
He made lots of other alerts in Jersey as well.
But it is clearly stated in an extract you yourself found that a human spotted what he took to be a skull, was given to Eddie to test (in much the same way as he tested an ignition key in PdL) and which produced a reaction suggestive of cadaver odour ...
Hmmm. I don't think that that is what I said.
My understanding is that Eddie alerts to various substances within his parameters of training. It is then up to humans to explore what caused the alert. In PdL there was no evidence of any kind.
-
Hmmm. Eddie didn't just alert at a coconut that humans assumed to be a bit of skull. That's not quite fair.
He made lots of other alerts in Jersey as well.
But it is clearly stated in an extract you yourself found that a human spotted what he took to be a skull, was given to Eddie to test (in much the same way as he tested an ignition key in PdL) and which produced a reaction suggestive of cadaver odour ...
Hmmm. I don't think that that is what I said.
My understanding is that Eddie alerts to various substances within his parameters of training. It is then up to humans to explore what caused the alert. In PdL there was no evidence of any kind.
If correct procedure was followed, Eddie will have tested the area beforehand for pre-existing scents, leaving open only the possibility that he reacted to the coconut.
If correct procedure was followed ...
-
Hmmm. Eddie didn't just alert at a coconut that humans assumed to be a bit of skull. That's not quite fair.
He made lots of other alerts in Jersey as well.
But it is clearly stated in an extract you yourself found that a human spotted what he took to be a skull, was given to Eddie to test (in much the same way as he tested an ignition key in PdL) and which produced a reaction suggestive of cadaver odour ...
Hmmm. I don't think that that is what I said.
My understanding is that Eddie alerts to various substances within his parameters of training. It is then up to humans to explore what caused the alert. In PdL there was no evidence of any kind.
If correct procedure was followed, Eddie will have tested the area beforehand for pre-existing scents, leaving open only the possibility that he reacted to the coconut.
If correct procedure was followed ...
Not if he alerted in an area and upon looking to see what he'd "found" was a potential piece of human skull.
-
Carana:
Not if he alerted in an area and upon looking to see what he'd "found" was a potential piece of human skull.
?
-
Well guys, what an extremely interesting thread, i haven't read all the posts but what I did read was good debate and very enlightening. Can I throw into the mix the relevance of the 'absence of evidence' as evidence against the Mccanns? i.e, the scene completely clean with no trace of Madeleine's hair or dna, and of course Maddie herself missing. So my question is, is the 'absence' of evidence which should be present evidence in itself towards arriving at proof?
-
In a word no.
Hi Martha, are you sure? think a bit more about it please
-
There was a trace of Madeleine's dna found in the apartment -- 3 months after the crime, but none found in the Portuguese forensic sweep of the apartment ...
-
Well guys, what an extremely interesting thread, i haven't read all the posts but what I did read was good debate and very enlightening. Can I throw into the mix the relevance of the 'absence of evidence' as evidence against the Mccanns? i.e, the scene completely clean with no trace of Madeleine's hair or dna, and of course Maddie herself missing. So my question is, is the 'absence' of evidence which should be present evidence in itself towards arriving at proof?
We don't know if any of the above were completely absent - all we do know is that none were found by the forensic people. That doesn't prove none existed.
There were lots of hairs found - predominantly dog hairs IIRC?
-
In a word no.
Hi Martha, are you sure? think a bit more about it please
What's that saying about the absence of evidence...?
Edgar Allen Poe, had a keen interest in this particular matter, he asserted that when evidence of an existence was absent when it should clearly be present, then it displays evidence of a cover up for that once existing object.(our words to that effect)
When police look for a weapon, lets say a knife, amongst a drawer of cutlery, it will most likely be the knife thats has no trace of prior usage, the one thats wiped clean.
Elementary my dear Martha 8)-)))
-
Well guys, what an extremely interesting thread, i haven't read all the posts but what I did read was good debate and very enlightening. Can I throw into the mix the relevance of the 'absence of evidence' as evidence against the Mccanns? i.e, the scene completely clean with no trace of Madeleine's hair or dna, and of course Maddie herself missing. So my question is, is the 'absence' of evidence which should be present evidence in itself towards arriving at proof?
The scene was not completely clean
There were no hairs found from the twins either
The police were not *looking* for Madeleine's dna
They collected/tested what was there, fingerprints, hairs, visible stains and the like
-
Well guys, what an extremely interesting thread, i haven't read all the posts but what I did read was good debate and very enlightening. Can I throw into the mix the relevance of the 'absence of evidence' as evidence against the Mccanns? i.e, the scene completely clean with no trace of Madeleine's hair or dna, and of course Maddie herself missing. So my question is, is the 'absence' of evidence which should be present evidence in itself towards arriving at proof?
The scene was not completely clean
There were no hairs found from the twins either
The police were not *looking* for Madeleine's dna
They collected/tested what was there, fingerprints, hairs, visible stains and the like
Forgive me if im wrong, but did the McCann's apartment suggest a cleaning operation with curtains washed(myth?) etc, Cuddlekat washed and as you said hairs, toothbrushes missing or absent?
Didn't Gerry have to go back to Rothley to aquire hair samples?
-
Corroborating presumptions are stronger that simple presumptions...
Thing is keela can never corroborate eddies alerts if they are to cadaver odour as she only alerts to blood,(though if she fails to react the odds are upped that it is cadaver scent), no science can either, the dog in the absence of physical remains is the only tool available to detect remnant scent
-
Forgive me if im wrong, but did the McCann's apartment suggest a cleaning operation with curtains washed(myth?) etc, Cuddlekat washed and as you said hairs, toothbrushes missing or absent?
Didn't Gerry have to go back to Rothley to aquire hair samples?
I don't think any of that is established fact. But yes Gerry had to go home to get a sample of Madeleine's dna from as much a sterile environment as possible, something 5a was not, in order to have a control sample against which to match forensics found. He gave her pillowcase to the Leicester police from which the FSS derived her dna profile, and which profile, tested against her parents and siblings' profiles, was 100% hers
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MADELEINES_DNA.htm
-
Well guys, what an extremely interesting thread, i haven't read all the posts but what I did read was good debate and very enlightening. Can I throw into the mix the relevance of the 'absence of evidence' as evidence against the Mccanns? i.e, the scene completely clean with no trace of Madeleine's hair or dna, and of course Maddie herself missing. So my question is, is the 'absence' of evidence which should be present evidence in itself towards arriving at proof?
We don't know if any of the above were completely absent - all we do know is that none were found by the forensic people. That doesn't prove none existed.
There were lots of hairs found - predominantly dog hairs IIRC?
Numi's hairs.
-
the dog in the absence of physical remains is the only tool available to detect remnant scent
Precious tool !
-
Forgive me if im wrong, but did the McCann's apartment suggest a cleaning operation with curtains washed(myth?) etc, Cuddlekat washed and as you said hairs, toothbrushes missing or absent?
Didn't Gerry have to go back to Rothley to aquire hair samples?
I don't think any of that is established fact. But yes Gerry had to go home to get a sample of Madeleine's dna from as much a sterile environment as possible, something 5a was not, in order to have a control sample against which to match forensics found. He gave her pillowcase to the Leicester police from which the FSS derived her dna profile, and which profile, tested against her parents and siblings' profiles, was 100% hers
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MADELEINES_DNA.htm
Very right.
-
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
-
the dog in the absence of physical remains is the only tool available to detect remnant scent
Precious tool !
It is, if it were not, police wouldnt use them
IMO Mr Grime saying Keela has to corroborate eddie's findings is just generous, because as said before, she cannot do so, so why he says there is no evidential value is a bit curious, but an extra alert to blood might strengthen the evidence, but by no means definitely means anything because both can react to blood
-
The Mystery of Marie Roget, I would say, or another mystery solved by Chevalier Auguste Dupin.
-
people giving opinions on what the evidence might be might give their lawyers a heads up?
8)--))
-
people giving opinions on what the evidence might be might give their lawyers a heads up?
8)--))
paranoia will destroy ya
-
people giving opinions on what the evidence might be might give their lawyers a heads up?
8)--))
oh I think their top-notch lawyers are fully aware of the evidence in this case
They were scouring case law as far away as America years ago
-
people giving opinions on what the evidence might be might give their lawyers a heads up?
8)--))
oh I think their top-notch lawyers are fully aware of the evidence in this case
They were scouring case law as far away as America years ago
Zapata? Oops
-
people giving opinions on what the evidence might be might give their lawyers a heads up?
8)--))
oh I think their top-notch lawyers are fully aware of the evidence in this case
They were scouring case law as far away as America years ago
irrelevant this 'as David Bowie once sung' is not America
-
It's long been a mystery to me why people get so excited by the Zapata case
The dogs are just as likely to have reacted to a deposit of blood, making the remarks of the judge no less valid after Zapata's confession than before.
In respect of PdL, Eddie's error with cuddle cat is a much more reliable guide ...
-
people giving opinions on what the evidence might be might give their lawyers a heads up?
8)--))
oh I think their top-notch lawyers are fully aware of the evidence in this case
They were scouring case law as far away as America years ago
irrelevant this 'as David Bowie once sung' is not America
Gerry didn't think so
He related the Zapata case law at some length, and Clarence Mitchell confirmed that McCann lawyers were in contact with Zapata's defense lawyers
All this was before Eugene Zapata confessed that was a murderer, of course
-
It's long been a mystery to me why people get so excited by the Zapata case
The dogs are just as likely to have reacted to a deposit of blood, making the remarks of the judge no less valid after Zapata's confession than before.
In respect of PdL, Eddie's error with cuddle cat is a much more reliable guide ...
No one is excited
The zapata case is not only one where cadaver dogs alerted notging was found and the perpetrator later confessed do keep up
-
people giving opinions on what the evidence might be might give their lawyers a heads up?
8)--))
oh I think their top-notch lawyers are fully aware of the evidence in this case
They were scouring case law as far away as America years ago
irrelevant this 'as David Bowie once sung' is not America
Gerry didn't think so
He related the Zapata case law at some length, and Clarence Mitchell confirmed that McCann lawyers were in contact with Zapata's defense lawyers
All this was before Eugene Zapata confessed that was a murderer, of course
Actually he was the one who attracted attention on Zapata. As for the dogs, had they appeared disturbed with the idea Madeleine might have died in the flat and started to contemplate that possibility, would we still consider they might be involved ? Or would we think they are really clever people ?
-
the Mccanns never considered or admitted the dogs might be right in their apt
Ever
not even for a blood dog finding Madeleinea nosebleed, it was said by gerry it was rubbish
goodnight
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7P-z5HJxr0o&feature=youtube_gdata_player
http://www.mccannfiles.com/id163.html
-
the Mccanns never considered or admitted the dogs might be right in their apt
Ever
goodnight
That baffled me at the time
When the dogs' evidence was revealed they were immediately defensive and combative
Why ? ... why wasn't the possibility that Madeleine may have been killed in the apartment ( by an intruder ) even considered by the McCanns, when confronted with that evidence ?
Why were they angry, rather than devastated by it ?
-
Because they knew their checks didn't allow sufficient time for cadaver odour to develop and because they knew they had not cleaned any blood from the apartment.
In other words it was the reaction of innocent people.
-
Were you there when they were told the news? Did you witness their reaction first hand?
Wouldn't your first reaction be disbelief, denial, refusal to accept such shocking news about your child, especially when there was clearly no evidence of a body or a death in the apartment?
First refusal to accept, sure, everybody can understand. But later ?
-
OK, well let's take the dogs' evidence first
We agree it is 'evidence' ( not conclusive or reliable without supporting forensic evidence, but evidence nonetheless )
So now we question whether it is evidence 'against' the McCanns, ( or of criminal wrong-doing on their part )
I would say, it most certainly is
The dogs' evidence, whilst inconclusive, suggests there is a possibility that the missing child was not abducted at all ... that she may have died, there in the apartment
The evidence, therefore, is not supportive of the McCann's stated position ... it is directly against it
Lets see, what is the dogs evidence?
A dog reacted to something in an apartment in which literally dozens of people had been since the abduction. The reaction may have nothing whatsoever to do with Madeleine or even the McCann family rendering this particular evidence of no consequential value to anyone really.
Next!
-
I'm listening, Debunker, but I think we're all getting lost in semantics.
If you mean that e.g., the fact that Kate's fingerprints were found on the window could be used as evidence against her in a Bongabongaland prosecution, then yes, I suppose it could be.
Yes. that is evidence that could be used against her.
All the cites I have given cover this, but people are so certain that their incorrect beliefs are correct, the information is not going in
Evidence that could be used against her? Was she not allowed to touch anything in the apartment? Absolutely unbelievable. @)(++(*
-
No intruder is going to take a risk of discovery over a corpse Anne and he certainly isn't going to walk around a busy tourist town at night with her in his arms. I am surprised you even suggested such a scenario.
As for evidence against the McCanns I fear nobody has come up with any so this can now be consigned to the myth bin.
If this forum declares that it is a myth that any evidence against the McCanns exists ... not just that the evidence is unreliable ... but that it does not exist , then it will be utterly discredited
I will certainly be bowing out
-
It is up to the members to provide this evidence which can show culpability in a crime. Up until now nobody has been able to do so.
Don't you think if there were any the Polícia Judiciária would have acted upon it?
-
It is up to the members to provide this evidence which can show culpability in a crime. Up until now nobody has been able to do so.
Don't you think if there were any the Polícia Judiciária would have acted upon it?
If you want to say that is a myth that there is any 'proof' against the McCanns, then do it ... that is what the Portuguese prosecutor decided afterall ( although it is not really a myth is it ... because no-one claims it )
To say it is a myth that any evidence against them exists at all, though ( even dodgy evidence ) is simply untrue, and making that claim will leave the forum with no credibility whatsoever
-
No intruder is going to take a risk of discovery over a corpse Anne and he certainly isn't going to walk around a busy tourist town at night with her in his arms. I am surprised you even suggested such a scenario.
As for evidence against the McCanns I fear nobody has come up with any so this can now be consigned to the myth bin.
If this forum declares that it is a myth that any evidence against the McCanns exists ... not just that the evidence is unreliable ... but that it does not exist , then it will be utterly discredited
I will certainly be bowing out
I would tend to agree.
If it can make a decision that is so obviously at variance with the facts, then it will have lost all credibility.
This is not a Pro versus Anti issue. It is a question of whether the forum is Fact based and dedicated to using the words of the English language conventionally rather than conveniently.
Perhaps we could do with a poll on this with an explanation of what is being said.
-
It is up to the members to provide this evidence which can show culpability in a crime. Up until now nobody has been able to do so.
Don't you think if there were any the Polícia Judiciária would have acted upon it?
They did act on it. They did a preliminary investigation which provided basic evidence that the Mccanns could have committed a crime, they questioned them, they made them arguido (which status at that time required there to be 'evidence' against them under Portuguese law and which the following day would have required there to be 'reasonable evidence- a change forced by the ECHR. They considered all the evidence and made a final report summing the evidence up and recommended the Prosecutor to charge the McCanns. The Prosecutor reviwed the evidence in depth and decided that there was no case to answer.
If there was no evidence at all against the McCanns, the process could not have started at all. It is illegal under Portuguese law to force the status of arguido on someone without evidence (now reasonable evidnece.)
-
Here are the words of a Portuguese Law expert (my emphasis):
Detectives invoke arguido status on someone as a preliminary to an arrest being made or charges brought, a Portuguese law expert, Lita Gale, told Guardian Unlimited today.
"If you are an arguido they have to have suspicion that a crime has been committed by that person," she said.
(My note- in order to have a 'suspicion, one needs evidence against the person- no evidence, no suspicion)
She added that when someone's status moves from that of a witness to an arguido, the police interview technique changes.
"Depending on the answers they may be moving towards a prosecution. If you cannot provide an alibi or the right answers they may move to prosecute. This is a serious moment. The suspect may be close to being charged," Ms Gale said.
Technically, police should treat someone as an arguido as soon as they have sufficient evidence. However, in some circumstances they may hold back to give somebody "a false sense of security", she added.
In practical terms, a person has to be declared an arguido before he or she can be arrested. Police may also ask a local court to place restrictions on a person's movement and oblige them to not leave the country.
Once a case file is completed, the police pass it to the public ministry, the equivalent of the crown prosecution service, which decides whether an "acusacao" or indictment is brought.
(My Note: The case file is a summsry of all the evidence applicable to the case)
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2007/sep/07/ukcrime.madeleinemccann2
-
I'm listening, Debunker, but I think we're all getting lost in semantics.
If you mean that e.g., the fact that Kate's fingerprints were found on the window could be used as evidence against her in a Bongabongaland prosecution, then yes, I suppose it could be.
Yes. that is evidence that could be used against her.
All the cites I have given cover this, but people are so certain that their incorrect beliefs are correct, the information is not going in
Evidence that could be used against her? Was she not allowed to touch anything in the apartment? Absolutely unbelievable. @)(++(*
Have you ever read the so-called evidence against Leonor?
aab) during those interviews about the case, arguida BB sometimes mentioned her daughter in the past tense and wore a black blouse;
http://joana-morais.blogspot.com/2009/07/supreme-court-of-justice-joana-case.html
-
Perhaps it would be a better question to ask what evidence of criminality exists against the McCanns. And we should define what crime it is they are suspected of having committed.
-
Perhaps it would be a better question to ask what evidence of criminality exists against the McCanns. And we should define what crime it is they are suspected of having committed.
It goes without saying but obviously there are those who will twist any thread title to suit their own agenda.
Debunker is now using at best neutral evidence and at worst false evidence to try and make a point. And before he goes running to the dictionary again we all know what evidence is. Bottom line is the PJ found that the evidence they had did NOT prove anything against the McCanns. The evidence they thought they had against the McCanns was false and led nowhere.
The only reason why the PJ made the McCanns arguidos was because they wrongly believed that the forensics had corroborated the dog alerts. Sadly for them they were wrong. The dog alerts are evidence but not against the McCanns just in the same way the forensics results are evidence but not in any way shape or form against the McCanns. QED.
-
Perhaps it would be a better question to ask what evidence of criminality exists against the McCanns. And we should define what crime it is they are suspected of having committed.
It goes without saying but obviously there are those who will twist any thread title to suit their own agenda.
Debunker is now using at best neutral evidence and at worst false evidence to try and make a point. And before he goes running to the dictionary again we all know what evidence is. Bottom line is the PJ found that the evidence they had did NOT prove anything against the McCanns. The evidence they thought they had against the McCanns was false and led nowhere.
The only reason why the PJ made the McCanns arguidos was because they wrongly believed that the forensics had corroborated the dog alerts. Sadly for them they were wrong. The dog alerts are evidence but not against the McCanns just in the same way the forensics results are evidence but not in any way shape or form against the McCanns. QED.
But in legal and normal (dictionary) terms evidence does not need to be TRUTH, just an ALLEGATION or INDIVATION.
The forensics were misinterpreted but that did not make it 'NOT EVIDENCE'.
I must say that if this decision is made formal I suspect that I will withdraw from the board as it will then no longer be debating fact but merely trying to agree on its own language to suit posters' prejudices. I see Icabod also feels that way.
Choose to pervert language and you will lose two of your most frequent posters, each fencesitters, because of that decision.
-
There still appears to be some confusion among posters as to what constitutes evidence of criminal activity in the disappearance of Madeleine McCann and in particular where it relates to the McCann's and the rest of the Tapas 9.
It is a myth borne out of innuendo and rumour to suggest that such evidence of criminally exists. As far as I am concerned there is no such evidence of any criminally against the McCanns and this is evidenced by the decision of the Portuguese prosecutors not to pursue any charges against them.
I suggest you look up the meaning of neutral evidence, false evidence and idle threats debunker?
-
But in legal and normal (dictionary) terms evidence does not need to be TRUTH
wouldn't that be perjury by the person presenting such "evidence" to court?
-
There still appears to be some confusion among posters as to what constitutes evidence of criminal activity in the disappearance of Madeleine McCann and in particular where it relates to the McCann's and the rest of the Tapas 9.
It is a myth borne out of innuendo and rumour to suggest that such evidence of criminally exists. As far as I am concerned there is no such evidence of any criminally against the McCanns and this is evidenced by the decision of the Portuguese prosecutors not to pursue any charges against them.
I suggest you look up the meaning of neutral evidence, false evidence and idle threats debunker?
I suggest that you acquaint yourself with the legal, scientific and normative definitions of the word which I have repeatedly cited.
No-one else has posted anything referenced from a neutral source.
It is not an idle thread. I am stubborn.
If you insist on listing something formally as a TRUTH which is in fact a FALSE OPINION, then I will have no further part in the board as that would call anything on the board into question.
It is not a myth that there is no probative evidence- make that a confirmed myth if you wish, but it is also a myth that there is no evidence against the McCanns- such evidence wexists, and denying it does not make it a true statement.
I will put up a Poll and let the members decide.
-
What is this word "INDIVATION?" Not one I've come across before, nor is it in my COED.
The thread title is now "What is the evidence of criminality against the McCanns?" (Than k you for the change, Angelo).
-
But in legal and normal (dictionary) terms evidence does not need to be TRUTH
wouldn't that be perjury by the person presenting such "evidence" to court?
No.
Please don't get me on to the meaning of perjury which is a DELIBERATE untruth with intent to derail justice, not a statement, for instance, made in error.
-
But in legal and normal (dictionary) terms evidence does not need to be TRUTH
wouldn't that be perjury by the person presenting such "evidence" to court?
In Romano-German system the accused has all rights, even the one to lie. Perjury doesn't exist.
-
... They considered all the evidence and made a final report summing the evidence up and recommended the Prosecutor to charge the McCanns. The Prosecutor reviwed the evidence in depth and decided that there was no case to answer.
If there was no evidence at all against the McCanns, the process could not have started at all. It is illegal under Portuguese law to force the status of arguido on someone without evidence (now reasonable evidnece.)
The PJ doesn't have to recommend to charge or not to, it's not its role.
It would be better to use "person of interest" for "arguido" than "suspect".
-
Is Gerry McCann saying ""F*** off, I'm not here to enjoy myself" evidence against him? I just want to get a handle on what does and does not constitute evidence in this debate.
If Kate had caved in and was willing to be blackmailed* into saying that there had been an accidental death to protect the other children, then it would seem that anything could have been submitted as complementary "evidence". Cf Leonor and the fact that she gave interviews wearing a dark top.
* Blackmailed isn't the right term. Bluffed in the face of a potential murder charge.
-
Here are the words of a Portuguese Law expert (my emphasis):
Detectives invoke arguido status on someone as a preliminary to an arrest being made or charges brought, a Portuguese law expert, Lita Gale, told Guardian Unlimited today.
"If you are an arguido they have to have suspicion that a crime has been committed by that person," she said.
(My note- in order to have a 'suspicion, one needs evidence against the person- no evidence, no suspicion)
She added that when someone's status moves from that of a witness to an arguido, the police interview technique changes.
"Depending on the answers they may be moving towards a prosecution. If you cannot provide an alibi or the right answers they may move to prosecute. This is a serious moment. The suspect may be close to being charged," Ms Gale said.
Technically, police should treat someone as an arguido as soon as they have sufficient evidence. However, in some circumstances they may hold back to give somebody "a false sense of security", she added.
In practical terms, a person has to be declared an arguido before he or she can be arrested. Police may also ask a local court to place restrictions on a person's movement and oblige them to not leave the country.
Once a case file is completed, the police pass it to the public ministry, the equivalent of the crown prosecution service, which decides whether an "acusacao" or indictment is brought.
(My Note: The case file is a summsry of all the evidence applicable to the case)
Yes and we all know why the McCanns were made arguidos dont we???
To remind you>>>>>>>>>>>>>> because they thought Madeleines DNA was found in the hire car.
THE FOOLS!!!! @)(++(*
-
Or to put it another way >>>> The EVIDENCE they THOUGHT they had turned out to be USELESS!!!
8(0(* @)(++(* @)(++(* @)(++(*
-
Here are the words of a Portuguese Law expert (my emphasis):
Detectives invoke arguido status on someone as a preliminary to an arrest being made or charges brought, a Portuguese law expert, Lita Gale, told Guardian Unlimited today.
"If you are an arguido they have to have suspicion that a crime has been committed by that person," she said.
(My note- in order to have a 'suspicion, one needs evidence against the person- no evidence, no suspicion)
She added that when someone's status moves from that of a witness to an arguido, the police interview technique changes.
"Depending on the answers they may be moving towards a prosecution. If you cannot provide an alibi or the right answers they may move to prosecute. This is a serious moment. The suspect may be close to being charged," Ms Gale said.
Technically, police should treat someone as an arguido as soon as they have sufficient evidence. However, in some circumstances they may hold back to give somebody "a false sense of security", she added.
In practical terms, a person has to be declared an arguido before he or she can be arrested. Police may also ask a local court to place restrictions on a person's movement and oblige them to not leave the country.
Once a case file is completed, the police pass it to the public ministry, the equivalent of the crown prosecution service, which decides whether an "acusacao" or indictment is brought.
(My Note: The case file is a summsry of all the evidence applicable to the case)
Yes and we all know why the McCanns were made arguidos dont we???
To remind you>>>>>>>>>>>>>> because they thought Madeleines DNA was found in the hire car.
THE FOOLS!!!! @)(++(*
And that FALSE evidence was still Evidence against the McCanns.
-
It is not a myth that there is no probative evidence- make that a confirmed myth if you wish, but it is also a myth that there is no evidence against the McCanns- such evidence wexists, and denying it does not make it a true statement.
I will put up a Poll and let the members decide.
Another new word probative...hmmm must look that up in the dictionary. 8(0(*
According to your own definition debunker there is evidence against everyone the moment they get out of bed in the morning and in a manner of speaking there is. There is evidence I went to the toilet today, there is evidence I fed my cats and there is evidence I spilt the milk....that reminds me. @)(++(*
What we are concerned with is evidence of criminality just in case you have forgotten in te mist of posts.
-
And that FALSE evidence was still Evidence against the McCanns.
Ha ha ......now you have really dug a hole for yourself.
False evidence?? You really would be laughed out of court on that one. @)(++(*
-
debunker
And that FALSE evidence was still Evidence against the McCanns.
what is the point........
-
And that FALSE evidence was still Evidence against the McCanns.
Ha ha ......now you have really dug a hole for yourself.
False evidence?? You really would be laughed out of court on that one. @)(++(*
As I keep on saying- look at the definition.
Evidence needs to be weighed. Some evidence will be probative, some evidence will be false. If you had read the other thread you will see that initially evidence is defined as 'information'; information may be true or false.
I am still waiting for a single cite or reference from your side of this argument to back up your private language use of the word.
-
debunker
And that FALSE evidence was still Evidence against the McCanns.
what is the point........
Sorry, could you clarify.
My point is that words should be used how they are defined in the dictionary.
-
Is Gerry McCann saying ""F*** off, I'm not here to enjoy myself" evidence against him? I just want to get a handle on what does and does not constitute evidence in this debate.
If Kate had caved in and was willing to be blackmailed* into saying that there had been an accidental death to protect the other children, then it would seem that anything could have been submitted as complementary "evidence". Cf Leonor and the fact that she gave interviews wearing a dark top.
* Blackmailed isn't the right term. Bluffed in the face of a potential murder charge.
So, "evidence against the McCanns," includes pretty much anything (no matter how useless it is), depending on who is deciding what is and isn't evidence - is that right or am I misunderstanding?
That is the dictionary definition, yes. Evidence is any information (of whatever standard) that might be presented to prove a point.
For instance in this argument, I have given my opinion (pretty valueless) but I have also cited dictionaries, both Ordinary and Legal to show that Evidence is just information, whether true or false, probative or not. The other side has given their opinion (again pretty valueless) and no other information/evidence.
-
And that FALSE evidence was still Evidence against the McCanns.
Ha ha ......now you have really dug a hole for yourself.
False evidence?? You really would be laughed out of court on that one. @)(++(*
http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-false-evidence.htm#slideshow
"False evidence is evidence presented in a legal case that cannot legally be relied upon for any number of reasons, ranging from genuine forgery of evidence to illegal means of procurement that bar the evidence from court even if it is factually valid. This can include spoken testimony, as well as physical evidence. The standards of evidence are designed to exclude false evidence but there have been a number of noted cases involving questionable evidence that led to convictions or acquittals in legal cases.
"Inadmissible evidence includes evidence acquired illegally, such as evidence taken during an illegal stop and search, along with evidence that was not properly documented when it was collected. If there are doubts about the chain of custody for evidence, it must also be excluded on the grounds that it could have been falsified or forged. Once evidence is collected, it must be in the control of law enforcement at all times, whether it is in the physical custody of an officer or in a secured lockup area where evidence can be stored. If evidence is left out without adequate supervision at any point, it is compromised, and cannot be used in court."
-
Could I remind you all that the book of criminal procedure is not a dictionary. That which applies in Court does not necessarily apply in the outside world.
ps Please keep to the topic.
-
The standards of evidence are designed to exclude false evidence
-
Cites and definitions aside I am still waiting to hear what this marvellous evidence of criminality which exists against the McCanns??
You claim there is some debunker so what is it? 8)-)))
-
Cites and definitions aside I am still waiting to hear what this marvellous evidence of criminality which exists against the McCanns??
You claim there is some debunker so what is it? 8)-)))
Debunker has painstakingly explained what constitutes 'evidence' throughout this thread
Despite that, when you are presented with evidence of possible criminality ( by the McCanns ) you reject it it on the grounds of you, personally, not being convinced by it
You are not acknowledging that whether you are convinced by it or not, it is still evidence
Perhaps you should re-title the thread ( again ) to word it thus :
"What evidence of criminality against the McCanns can be presented that I wil find convincing ?"
... because, it appears to me, that is what you are really asking
-
We arent interested in definitions. Hard evidence is what we want to hear >>> another new prefix ?{)(**
-
Is Gerry McCann saying ""F*** off, I'm not here to enjoy myself" evidence against him? I just want to get a handle on what does and does not constitute evidence in this debate.
bump
-
Perhaps an ego thing, but I still prefer, what evidence is also suspicious?
I find that more objective, and the answer is plain: none!
-
We arent interested in definitions. Hard evidence is what we want to hear >>> another new prefix ?{)(**
Well then, let's test your objective search for evidence against the McCanns
Martin Smith witnesses that he is almost certain he saw Gerry McCann carrying a child at 10.00pm on the night Madeleine went missing
That is 'hard evidence' against the McCanns
Now, this is where you reject the evidence on the grounds that you personally do not believe it ... not because it doesn't exist ... but because you, personally, don't believe it
I should add that I don't believe Martin Smith saw Gerry that night either, but that does not allow me to say that what he thinks he witnessed is 'non-evidence'
-
Perhaps an ego thing, but I still prefer, what evidence is also suspicious?
I find that more objective, and the answer is plain: none!
The [ censored word] will always find something suspicious in all the mccanns do.
They are even being criticised for charging a nominal fee for certain search products.
-
We arent interested in definitions. Hard evidence is what we want to hear >>> another new prefix ?{)(**
Well then, let's test your objective search for evidence against the McCanns
Martin Smith witnesses that he he is almost certain he saw Gerry McCann carrying a child at 10.00pm on the night Madeleine went missing
That is 'hard evidence' aginst the McCanns
Now, this is where you reject the evidence on the grounds that you personally do not believe it ... not because it doesn't exist ... but because you, personally, don't believe it
I should add that I don't believe Martin Smith saw Gerry that night either, but that does not allow me to say that what he thinks he witnessed is 'non-evidence'
Please realise that evidence means zilch without corroboration icabodcrane. The many other members of the group said IT WAS NOT GERRY MCCANN> thus by something like 8 votes to 1 he fails. There is a joke in here somewhere about Specsavers but I wont indulge. @)(++(*
It all comes down to balance of probabilities. This is how the criminal justice system works.
Do read the myth section.
-
Could I remind you all that the book of criminal procedure is not a dictionary. That which applies in Court does not necessarily apply in the outside world.
ps Please keep to the topic.
The general dictionaries (Collins, Chambers, Shorter Oxford) and Legal dictionaries support my argument.
You have produced no probative evidence for your contention yet- all we have had has been your opinions. How about a cite for the way you are mis-using the word!
-
Icabodcrane is correct when she posts that it is evidence but angello is also correct when he states that it all comes down to the balance of probabilities.
In the end it is the majority who carry the day.
-
Isn't it a case of - there was evidence collected about the McCanns and Murat, it was reviewed by the PT authorities and they decided that in fact it did not constitute evidence of criminal activity and that therefore what we are left with is no evidence of criminal wrong-doing by the arguidos?
No. There was evidence collected that still is evidence against them- means and opportunity to start with. They still has means and opportunity even if the Dogs and DNA were not admissible evidence.
-
We arent interested in definitions. Hard evidence is what we want to hear >>> another new prefix ?{)(**
Well then, let's test your objective search for evidence against the McCanns
Martin Smith witnesses that he he is almost certain he saw Gerry McCann carrying a child at 10.00pm on the night Madeleine went missing
That is 'hard evidence' aginst the McCanns
Now, this is where you reject the evidence on the grounds that you personally do not believe it ... not because it doesn't exist ... but because you, personally, don't believe it
I should add that I don't believe Martin Smith saw Gerry that night either, but that does not allow me to say that what he thinks he witnessed is 'non-evidence'
Please realise that evidence means zilch without corroboration icabodcrane. The many other members of the group said IT WAS NOT GERRY MCCANN> thus by something like 8 votes to 1 he fails.
Do read the myth section.
You cannot cherry pick which witness statements to accept and which to reject
It is all evidence
I might just as preposterously claim that the tapas group couldn't have seen Gerry at the table at 10pm because he was carrying a child past the Smith family at that time
See what I did there ... I arbitrarily chose one piece of evidence over another, and presented it as fact
-
Icabodcrane is correct when she posts that it is evidence but angello is also correct when he states that it all comes down to the balance of probabilities.
In the end it is the majority who carry the day.
The majority who write the dictionaries and legal texts that is!
-
Isn't it a case of - there was evidence collected about the McCanns and Murat, it was reviewed by the PT authorities and they decided that in fact it did not constitute evidence of criminal activity and that therefore what we are left with is no evidence of criminal wrong-doing by the arguidos?
Got it in one 8((()*/
-
Isn't it a case of - there was evidence collected about the McCanns and Murat, it was reviewed by the PT authorities and they decided that in fact it did not constitute evidence of criminal activity and that therefore what we are left with is no evidence of criminal wrong-doing by the arguidos?
Got it in one 8((()*/
As explained above, this is FALSE.
-
No. There was evidence collected that still is evidence against them- means and opportunity to start with. They still has means and opportunity even if the Dogs and DNA were not admissible evidence.
Do you know how stupid that sounds debunker?? Evidence against them was considered and rejected. End off unless and until such time as substantial new CORROBORATIVE EVIDENCE is found.
And Marthas post is not false, the evidence is that there is no evidence of criminality.
NO EVIDENCE NO ARGUIDO STATUS NO CULPABILITY NO PROSECUTION NO CASE TO ANSWER
-
We arent interested in definitions. Hard evidence is what we want to hear >>> another new prefix ?{)(**
Well then, let's test your objective search for evidence against the McCanns
Martin Smith witnesses that he he is almost certain he saw Gerry McCann carrying a child at 10.00pm on the night Madeleine went missing
That is 'hard evidence' aginst the McCanns
Now, this is where you reject the evidence on the grounds that you personally do not believe it ... not because it doesn't exist ... but because you, personally, don't believe it
I should add that I don't believe Martin Smith saw Gerry that night either, but that does not allow me to say that what he thinks he witnessed is 'non-evidence'
Please realise that evidence means zilch without corroboration icabodcrane. The many other members of the group said IT WAS NOT GERRY MCCANN> thus by something like 8 votes to 1 he fails. There is a joke in here somewhere about Specsavers but I wont indulge. @)(++(*
It all comes down to balance of probabilities. This is how the criminal justice system works.
Do read the myth section.
OK, let's try it another way ( although I don't really like responding to posts that shout at me )
Let's imagine, for a moment, that the McCanns were to be charged with a criminal act at some point
Mr Smith's evidence would, almost certainly, be presented in court as evidence against them
His evidence against them might be discredited in court, or even disproven all together ... but it would ( and does ) constitute evidence against them
-
Before you move on Ica, do you accept that the evidence by the eight or so of the Smith group takes precedence over that of Mr Smith?
....or are we to believe him just because he shouted the loudest??
-
Before you move on Ica, do you accept that the evidence by the eight or so of the Smith group takes precedence over that of Mr Smith?
....or are we to believe him just because he shouted the loudest??
We cannot choose which witnesses to believe and which not to
All witnesses provide evidence. In Martin Smith's case, it was evidence against the McCanns
His evidence exists Angelo, whether you believe it or not
-
Debunker: And that FALSE evidence was still Evidence against the McCanns.
If this is the case, then every theory the [ censored word] have ever promulgated to show the McCanns as guilty is valid as "evidence against the McCanns," even the wackiest of them. After all they do give reasons ("evidence") for their theories .....
-
Isn't it a case of - there was evidence collected about the McCanns and Murat, it was reviewed by the PT authorities and they decided that in fact it did not constitute evidence of criminal activity and that therefore what we are left with is no evidence of criminal wrong-doing by the arguidos?
No. There was evidence collected that still is evidence against them- means and opportunity to start with. They still has means and opportunity even if the Dogs and DNA were not admissible evidence.
8)><( I give up.
But but.. didn't the report removing their arguido status state that no 'means or opportunity' could be identified?
-
I don't think Mr. Smith did shout the loudest. And he only said 60 to 80%. Hardly damning. The evidence from the rest of his family was ignored, by Goncalo Amaral.
So, the evidence of Mr. Smith could have been produced in a Court of Law by The Prosecution, only to be debunked by The Defence with the rest of his family.
I think I do actually understand what Debunker is saying, but it is all so frightfully pedantic. And of no value when it comes to a Prosecution. Of which there has been none.
There is a limit to the use of semantics.
-
OK, let's try it another way ( although I don't really like responding to posts that shout at me )
Let's imagine, for a moment, that the McCanns were to be charged with a criminal act at some point
Mr Smith's evidence would, almost certainly, be presented in court as evidence against them
His evidence against them might be discredited in court, or even disproven all together ... but it would ( and does ) constitute evidence against them
It would pit Mr Smith against the other numerous members of his family and show his evidence to not be credible. No self respecting advocate would ever embarass a witness to that extent. Even Mr Smith has now doubted what he thought he saw.
It isn't evidence against them Ica, it is merely someones perception.
-
And Debunker - before you leave this board in high dudgeon, do please explain what 'INVIDATION' means used by you in a previous post. As I said, I can't find it in my COED, or in any online lexicon.
-
I don't think Mr. Smith did shout the loudest. And he only said 60 to 80%. Hardly damning. The evidence from the rest of his family was ignored, by Goncalo Amaral.
So, the evidence of Mr. Smith could have been produced in a Court of Law by The Prosecution, only to be debunked by The Defence with the rest of his family.
I think I do actually understand what Debunker is saying, but it is all so frightfully pedantic. And of no value when it comes to a Prosecution. Of which there has been none.
There is a limit to the use of semantics.
Totally agree. Amaral chose to ignore the other members of the family as cops tend to do when they get a smidgeon of information which suits their own warped agenda.
-
OK, let's try it another way ( although I don't really like responding to posts that shout at me )
Let's imagine, for a moment, that the McCanns were to be charged with a criminal act at some point
Mr Smith's evidence would, almost certainly, be presented in court as evidence against them
His evidence against them might be discredited in court, or even disproven all together ... but it would ( and does ) constitute evidence against them
It would pit Mr Smith against the other numerous members of his family and show his evidence to not be credible. No self respecting advocate would ever embarass a witness to that extent. Even Mr Smith has now doubted what he thought he saw.
It isn't evidence against them Ica, it is merely someones perception.
Martin Smith's evidence against the McCanns would be admissible in court
Whether it might, subsequently, be discredited or disproven is a possibility ... the point is, though, that there exists evidence against the McCanns that would be considered as such in a court of law
-
OK, let's try it another way ( although I don't really like responding to posts that shout at me )
Let's imagine, for a moment, that the McCanns were to be charged with a criminal act at some point
Mr Smith's evidence would, almost certainly, be presented in court as evidence against them
His evidence against them might be discredited in court, or even disproven all together ... but it would ( and does ) constitute evidence against them
It would pit Mr Smith against the other numerous members of his family and show his evidence to not be credible. No self respecting advocate would ever embarass a witness to that extent. Even Mr Smith has now doubted what he thought he saw.
It isn't evidence against them Ica, it is merely someones perception.
Martin Smith's evidence against the McCanns would be admissible in court
Whether it might, subsequently, be discredited or disproven is a possibility ... the point is, though, that there exists evidence against the McCanns that would be considered as such in a court of law
Evidence of what Ica? He thought he saw someone??? @)(++(* @)(++(* @)(++(*
Sounds like a scene out of Faulty Towers. Manuel hola!!
Afraid it doesn't cut any mustard my dear.
-
OK, let's try it another way ( although I don't really like responding to posts that shout at me )
Let's imagine, for a moment, that the McCanns were to be charged with a criminal act at some point
Mr Smith's evidence would, almost certainly, be presented in court as evidence against them
His evidence against them might be discredited in court, or even disproven all together ... but it would ( and does ) constitute evidence against them
It would pit Mr Smith against the other numerous members of his family and show his evidence to not be credible. No self respecting advocate would ever embarass a witness to that extent. Even Mr Smith has now doubted what he thought he saw.
It isn't evidence against them Ica, it is merely someones perception.
Martin Smith's evidence against the McCanns would be admissible in court
Whether it might, subsequently, be discredited or disproven is a possibility ... the point is, though, that there exists evidence against the McCanns that would be considered as such in a court of law
Evidence of what Ica? He thought he saw someone. @)(++(* @)(++(* @)(++(*
He believes he saw Gerry McCann carrying a child on the night Madeleine went missing
... and that evidence against the McCanns would be admissible in court
-
I don't think Mr. Smith did shout the loudest. And he only said 60 to 80%. Hardly damning. The evidence from the rest of his family was ignored, by Goncalo Amaral.
So, the evidence of Mr. Smith could have been produced in a Court of Law by The Prosecution, only to be debunked by The Defence with the rest of his family.
I think I do actually understand what Debunker is saying, but it is all so frightfully pedantic. And of no value when it comes to a Prosecution. Of which there has been none.
There is a limit to the use of semantics.
No prosecutor would even use Mr Smith as his evidence is frankly, absurd.
-
Grasping at straws comes to mind. 8(0(*
Do you disagree that Martin Smith's evidence would be admissible in a court of law as evidence against the McCanns ?
-
Grasping at straws comes to mind. 8(0(*
Do you disagree that Martin Smith's evidence would be admissible in a court of law as evidence against the McCanns ?
Admissible yes but without corroboration pretty benign.
-
Grasping at straws comes to mind. 8(0(*
Do you disagree that Martin Smith's evidence would be admissible in a court of law as evidence against the McCanns ?
Admissible yes but without corroboration pretty benign.
Benign?? He would be laughed out of court and down the street and he knows it. @)(++(*
-
I don't think Mr. Smith did shout the loudest. And he only said 60 to 80%. Hardly damning. The evidence from the rest of his family was ignored, by Goncalo Amaral.
So, the evidence of Mr. Smith could have been produced in a Court of Law by The Prosecution, only to be debunked by The Defence with the rest of his family.
I think I do actually understand what Debunker is saying, but it is all so frightfully pedantic. And of no value when it comes to a Prosecution. Of which there has been none.
There is a limit to the use of semantics.
Totally agree. Amaral chose to ignore the other members of the family as cops tend to do when they get a smidgeon of information which suits their own warped agenda.
It 's not like that. Only one member of Mr Smith's family, his wife, agreed with him, but she didn't want to testify (which I understand as this kind of statement isn't insignificant). The others didn't share the same feeling. Now only his son and his daughter in law actually crossed the carrier (he passed on their left side whereas passed on the right side of Mr Smith and his wife). Aoife had another point of view : a low angle shot.
-
OK, let's try it another way ( although I don't really like responding to posts that shout at me )
Let's imagine, for a moment, that the McCanns were to be charged with a criminal act at some point
Mr Smith's evidence would, almost certainly, be presented in court as evidence against them
His evidence against them might be discredited in court, or even disproven all together ... but it would ( and does ) constitute evidence against them
It would pit Mr Smith against the other numerous members of his family and show his evidence to not be credible. No self respecting advocate would ever embarass a witness to that extent. Even Mr Smith has now doubted what he thought he saw.
It isn't evidence against them Ica, it is merely someones perception.
Martin Smith's evidence against the McCanns would be admissible in court
Whether it might, subsequently, be discredited or disproven is a possibility ... the point is, though, that there exists evidence against the McCanns that would be considered as such in a court of law
Not if you have any desire as a Prosecutor to retain your credibility. No half decent Prosecutor would present a witness when he knows that certain other witnesses at the scene are going to, at the very least, refuse to agree.
Such a waste of Court time, don't you think.
This is why it never got there.
-
Grasping at straws comes to mind. 8(0(*
Do you disagree that Martin Smith's evidence would be admissible in a court of law as evidence against the McCanns ?
Admissible yes but without corroboration pretty benign.
There we have it then
... evidence against the McCanns that a court would be compelled to hear and consider
It's no myth
-
I don't think Mr. Smith did shout the loudest. And he only said 60 to 80%. Hardly damning. The evidence from the rest of his family was ignored, by Goncalo Amaral.
So, the evidence of Mr. Smith could have been produced in a Court of Law by The Prosecution, only to be debunked by The Defence with the rest of his family.
I think I do actually understand what Debunker is saying, but it is all so frightfully pedantic. And of no value when it comes to a Prosecution. Of which there has been none.
There is a limit to the use of semantics.
No prosecutor would even use Mr Smith as his evidence is frankly, absurd.
Of course they wouldn't. No Prosecutor wants to be laughed out of Court.
The only purpose that The Smith Family fullfilled was they they saw someone carrying a child at approximately the right time.
I don't know if it was Madeleine, but the FACT that this persons has never come forward might suggest that it was.
Does anyone actually believe that an innocent bystander would have said nothing?
-
they saw someone carrying a child at approximately the right time.
What do you mean ? Not really the "right time" if linked to Jane T's sighting.
-
Grasping at straws comes to mind. 8(0(*
Do you disagree that Martin Smith's evidence would be admissible in a court of law as evidence against the McCanns ?
Admissible yes but without corroboration pretty benign.
There we have it then
... evidence against the McCanns that a court would be compelled to hear and consider
It's no myth
Compelled? You could be right about that. And then compelled to hear what the rest of The Smith Family had to say.
The Smith Family, collectively, were of no use whatsoever in a Criminal Prosecution.
Do you seriously believe that the evidence of Martin Smith was of any use?
And, Dear God, I shudder to think of what The Defence would have done to Mrs. Smith, presuming that she could have been forced to give evidence.
-
they saw someone carrying a child at approximately the right time.
What do you mean ? Not really the "right time" if linked to Jane T's sighting.
Don't be silly, Silly. I can think of half a dozen reasons for the time lapse, if I wished to speculate. And for why The Abductor might have chosen the route.
Do you know anything at all about Logistics? And Logistics isn't always to do with Lorry Driving.
-
The Smith Family, collectively, were of no use whatsoever in a Criminal Prosecution.
Agreed!
But Aofe Smith (in particular) might have been more than useful as a defence witness ...
-
they saw someone carrying a child at approximately the right time.
What do you mean ? Not really the "right time" if linked to Jane T's sighting.
Don't be silly, Silly. I can think of half a dozen reasons for the time lapse, if I wished to speculate. And for why The Abductor might have chosen the route.
Do you know anything at all about Logistics? And Logistics isn't always to do with Lorry Driving.
You're being rude, why ?
Will you tell us why the "abductor might have chosen the route" or will you find it conveniently speculative ?
-
Grasping at straws comes to mind. 8(0(*
Do you disagree that Martin Smith's evidence would be admissible in a court of law as evidence against the McCanns ?
Admissible yes but without corroboration pretty benign.
There we have it then
... evidence against the McCanns that a court would be compelled to hear and consider
It's no myth
I agreed it was evidence but certainly isn't evidence against the McCann's. Observing someone walking in a street with a child is a million miles away from proving it was Gerry McCann and especially when there are over a dozen witnesses who can attest to his presence elsewhere at the same time.
Personally I cannot understand why anyone would countenance the claim by Martin Smith as the poor man is so obvious wrong. The man made a mistake...end off!
-
We arent interested in definitions. Hard evidence is what we want to hear >>> another new prefix ?{)(**
Well then, let's test your objective search for evidence against the McCanns
Martin Smith witnesses that he he is almost certain he saw Gerry McCann carrying a child at 10.00pm on the night Madeleine went missing
That is 'hard evidence' aginst the McCanns
Now, this is where you reject the evidence on the grounds that you personally do not believe it ... not because it doesn't exist ... but because you, personally, don't believe it
I should add that I don't believe Martin Smith saw Gerry that night either, but that does not allow me to say that what he thinks he witnessed is 'non-evidence'
Please realise that evidence means zilch without corroboration icabodcrane. The many other members of the group said IT WAS NOT GERRY MCCANN> thus by something like 8 votes to 1 he fails. There is a joke in here somewhere about Specsavers but I wont indulge. @)(++(*
It all comes down to balance of probabilities. This is how the criminal justice system works.
Do read the myth section.
OK, let's try it another way ( although I don't really like responding to posts that shout at me )
Let's imagine, for a moment, that the McCanns were to be charged with a criminal act at some point
Mr Smith's evidence would, almost certainly, be presented in court as evidence against them
His evidence against them might be discredited in court, or even disproven all together ... but it would ( and does ) constitute evidence against them
Mr Smith's evidence would, almost certainly, be presented in court as evidence against them
That is based on the premise that Mr Smith feels now as he did then.
I'm pretty sure you can't take that as read ...
-
Grasping at straws comes to mind. 8(0(*
Do you disagree that Martin Smith's evidence would be admissible in a court of law as evidence against the McCanns ?
Admissible yes but without corroboration pretty benign.
There we have it then
... evidence against the McCanns that a court would be compelled to hear and consider
It's no myth
Compelled? You could be right about that. And then compelled to hear what the rest of The Smith Family had to say.
The Smith Family, collectively, were of no use whatsoever in a Criminal Prosecution.
Do you seriously believe that the evidence of Martin Smith was of any use?
And, Dear God, I shudder to think of what The Defence would have done to Mrs. Smith, presuming that she could have been forced to give evidence.
This thread was not started in order to discuss whether the evidence against the McCanns is reliable, it was started in order to dismiss as 'myth' that any evidence against the McCanns exists at all
I don't think Mr Smith's evidence against the McCanns is reliable, and believe it could be comfortably discredited in court
That is not the same thing, though, as claiming Mr Smith does not present evidence against the McCanns ... because he does
That fact disproves the premise of this thread
-
The Smith Family, collectively, were of no use whatsoever in a Criminal Prosecution.
Agreed!
But Aofe Smith (in particular) might have been more than useful as a defence witness ...
Yes, she would have been torn to shreds in the end.
-
This thread was not started in order to discuss whether the evidence against the McCanns is reliable, it was started in order to dismiss as 'myth' that any evidence against the McCanns exists at all
I don't think Mr Smith's evidence against the McCanns is reliable, and believe it could be comfortably discredited in court
That is not the same thing, though, as claiming Mr Smith does not present evidence against the McCanns ... because he does
That fact disproves the premise of this thread
Wrong Ica. I started the thread to explore any evidence which can show criminality against the McCanns. Mr Smith and his family saw a man carrying a child. Anything further is pure speculation.
Why do you labor this issue so when you are so obviously wrong??
-
This thread was not started in order to discuss whether the evidence against the McCanns is reliable, it was started in order to dismiss as 'myth' that any evidence against the McCanns exists at all
I don't think Mr Smith's evidence against the McCanns is reliable, and believe it could be comfortably discredited in court
That is not the same thing, though, as claiming Mr Smith does not present evidence against the McCanns ... because he does
That fact disproves the premise of this thread
Wrong Ica. I started the thread to explore any evidence which can show criminality against the McCanns. Mr Smith and his family saw a man carrying a child. Anything further is pure speculation.
Why do you labor this issue so when you are so obviously wrong??
Because I like debating here, and am in admiration of a forum that still allows open discussion of this case
I labor this point, particulaly, because I do not want the forum to discredit itself by proclaiming something a 'myth' when it clearly is not
-
Sorry, could I just say that Debunker is not necessarily wrong. Just frightfully boring at times, because he persists with semantics. But he doesn't half get some people going when it comes to The Law. Which is what it is actually all about.
He would be your best friend if someone was trying to stitch up any of you.
And, Yes, I do believe that Goncalo Amaral did try to stitch up The McCanns, mainly because he was already in serious trouble over The Cipriano Affair. But that is only my belief. And we have still not seen the end of that.
Goncalo Amaral is a very stupid and ignorant man who has no real understanding of science or DNA. And Yes, I do have this understanding. But then it isn't all that difficult.
Semantics? Don't take me on. I could make minced meat out of all of the Anti McCanns. I just don't choose to. Debunker does that for me.
Et mercis beaucoup, mon cher. You are so much better at it than I am. And never doubt that I do understand.
-
Mr Smith and his family saw a man carrying a child. Anything further is pure speculation.
I don't think so. They didn't see a child, but a little girl whom three of them described precisely. I agree that the feeling of Mr Smith has no identification value, but it gives an indication about the carrier's gait. Curiously this wasn't exploited nor was corrected Bundleman (Cooperman) with the agreement of Jane of course.
-
Ecoute mois.
What does this mean in English, please ?
-
The Smith Family, collectively, were of no use whatsoever in a Criminal Prosecution.
Agreed!
But Aofe Smith (in particular) might have been more than useful as a defence witness ...
I don't know, Our Kid. It never got there. And The Defence would have decimated Martin Smith. Poor soul, who I do believe had a crisis of conscience, probably for the best of reasons. But it was never going to wash. Even I could could destroyed what he appears to have thought. Simply by the carrying of a child, which all of us have done at some time.
And Yes, I could also explain what Jane Tanner says she saw of the carrying of the child. It is all so simple to me.
But my opinions are always my own. None of us actually known.
-
Ecoute mois.
What does this mean in English, please ?
I assume it should be ecoute moi?
-
Ah écoutez-moi !
-
Ecoute mois.
What does this mean in English, please ?
Presumably you have no French. It means, "Hear Me", or "Listen to me". It is of no great importance. Unless you don't, of course.
-
Ah écoutez-moi !
Only if you are talking to the non familiar. Vous, as it were.
-
I don't know, Our Kid. It never got there. And The Defence would have decimated Martin Smith. Poor soul, who I do believe had a crisis of conscience, probably for the best of reasons. But it was never going to wash. Even I could could destroyed what he appears to have thought. Simply by the carrying of a child, which all of us have done at some time.
And Yes, I could also explain what Jane Tanner says she saw of the carrying of the child. It is all so simple to me.
But my opinions are always my own. None of us actually known.
You could and you could imagine half a dozen reasons "for the time lapse".. and "for why The Abductor might have chosen the route". Why do you keep it for yourself ? Is it we don't deserve it ?
-
Ah écoutez-moi !
Only if you are talking to the non familiar. Vous, as it were.
Thanks for the French lesson, Eleanor !
-
I don't know why people are of the view that the person Jane Tanner alledgedly saw at 9.15 or so is the same person the Smith group saw at 10.00 or so. The descriptions of him are not identical, they differ in a couple of respects, in appearance, hair and face, and in where they were going. Not to mention one of the Smiths said the child had a long sleeved pyjama top on and trousers and Kate says Madeleine was wearing short sleeved pyjama top that night and that Jane had seen bare arms, not that I read that anywhere in Jane Tanners statements, was that a Kate porkie? and the bottoms were shorts.
-
No. There was evidence collected that still is evidence against them- means and opportunity to start with. They still has means and opportunity even if the Dogs and DNA were not admissible evidence.
Do you know how stupid that sounds debunker?? Evidence against them was considered and rejected. End off unless and until such time as substantial new CORROBORATIVE EVIDENCE is found.
And Marthas post is not false, the evidence is that there is no evidence of criminality.
NO EVIDENCE NO ARGUIDO STATUS NO CULPABILITY NO PROSECUTION NO CASE TO ANSWER
You are mis-using English.
I have produced cites; you have produced none.
This is as bad as arguing with creationists- all bluster and no cites.
-
Ah écoutez-moi !
Only if you are talking to the non familiar. Vous, as it were.
Thanks for the French lesson, Eleanor !
And of course, Vous is always collective. It is not possible to talk to more than one person in the familiar. I briefly thought that you might be familiar. Silly me.
Although I cannot for the life of me remember when I said that.
Did you go looking for it just to mock me? How bloody pathetic. Was I actually talking to you?
This is what you all do. No real argument, isn't it.
-
I don't think Mr. Smith did shout the loudest. And he only said 60 to 80%. Hardly damning. The evidence from the rest of his family was ignored, by Goncalo Amaral.
So, the evidence of Mr. Smith could have been produced in a Court of Law by The Prosecution, only to be debunked by The Defence with the rest of his family.
I think I do actually understand what Debunker is saying, but it is all so frightfully pedantic. And of no value when it comes to a Prosecution. Of which there has been none.
There is a limit to the use of semantics.
No prosecutor would even use Mr Smith as his evidence is frankly, absurd.
Of course they wouldn't. No Prosecutor wants to be laughed out of Court.
The only purpose that The Smith Family fullfilled was they they saw someone carrying a child at approximately the right time.
I don't know if it was Madeleine, but the FACT that this persons has never come forward might suggest that it was.
Does anyone actually believe that an innocent bystander would have said nothing?
Not only him, but if he was innocently carrying his child to somewhere from somewhere then there must be other people from those places who would also know it was an innocent sighting. One might expect a mother to report that it was her son collecting his daughter from her home, or a wife saying that it was her husband picking up their child from her mother's who had been babysitting for them etc. And yet nothing - not a word. Apart from the similarities in their descriptions - the deafening silence resulting from both JT and the Smith's sighting strongly suggests that it was the same person.
-
No. There was evidence collected that still is evidence against them- means and opportunity to start with. They still has means and opportunity even if the Dogs and DNA were not admissible evidence.
Do you know how stupid that sounds debunker?? Evidence against them was considered and rejected. End off unless and until such time as substantial new CORROBORATIVE EVIDENCE is found.
And Marthas post is not false, the evidence is that there is no evidence of criminality.
NO EVIDENCE NO ARGUIDO STATUS NO CULPABILITY NO PROSECUTION NO CASE TO ANSWER
You are mis-using English.
I have produced cites; you have produced none.
This is as bad as arguing with creationists- all bluster and no cites.
Debunker. I love you half to death because I know who you are, and that you are a kind person. And that you will give anyone the benefit of the doubt. And often beyond that. You also know that I have some similar thoughts and experience on any such subject because I have been involved on occasions with the dregs of society. And felt at least some understanding.
But can you please explain to me for why you want to raise doubts about The McCanns, even semantically?
You have no more evidence than any of us have. Or am I just thick? Is there something about me that is too stupid to understand what you are saying. Are you saying that there is nothing? Or that there is something?
I really need to know, because I will travel nowhere until I do.
-
Benice, it is only your opinion that there is strong evidence that the two sightings were of the same man and child, the actual evidence says otherwise.
-
No. There was evidence collected that still is evidence against them- means and opportunity to start with. They still has means and opportunity even if the Dogs and DNA were not admissible evidence.
Do you know how stupid that sounds debunker?? Evidence against them was considered and rejected. End off unless and until such time as substantial new CORROBORATIVE EVIDENCE is found.
And Marthas post is not false, the evidence is that there is no evidence of criminality.
NO EVIDENCE NO ARGUIDO STATUS NO CULPABILITY NO PROSECUTION NO CASE TO ANSWER
You are mis-using English.
I have produced cites; you have produced none.
This is as bad as arguing with creationists- all bluster and no cites.
Debunker. I love you half to death because I know who you are, and that you are a kind person. And that you will give anyone the benefit of the doubt. And often beyond that. You also know that I have some similar thoughts and experience on any such subject because I have been involved on occasions with the dregs of society. And felt at least some understanding.
But can you please explain to me for why you want to raise doubts about The McCanns, even semantically?
You have no more evidence than any of us have. Or am I just thick? Is there something about me that is too stupid to understand what you are saying. Are you saying that there is nothing? Or that there is something?
I really need to know, because I will travel nowhere until I do.
Evidence is any INFORMATION, true or false, probative or not that could be referred to in deciding a case or making a scientific study.
IT is totally true that there is no PROBATIVE EVIDENCE against the McCanns.
Probative Evidence is a sub-set of all Evidence that could be given against the McCanns.
Saying that there is NO EVIDENCE is to misunderstand the nature of evidence and what it means in the real world.
For instance, there is good evidence that the world is flat- we see a straight horizon when we look out to sea and have no sense impression of living on a spherical world. That is evidence for a flat earth- it is information that could be adduced to prove that the earth is flat. It happens to be untrue and therefore is neither acceptable in scientific argument, nor in any way probative.
All the dictionaries and law texts agree that Evidence is truth-value free- merely information.
-
I don't think Mr. Smith did shout the loudest. And he only said 60 to 80%. Hardly damning. The evidence from the rest of his family was ignored, by Goncalo Amaral.
So, the evidence of Mr. Smith could have been produced in a Court of Law by The Prosecution, only to be debunked by The Defence with the rest of his family.
I think I do actually understand what Debunker is saying, but it is all so frightfully pedantic. And of no value when it comes to a Prosecution. Of which there has been none.
There is a limit to the use of semantics.
No prosecutor would even use Mr Smith as his evidence is frankly, absurd.
Of course they wouldn't. No Prosecutor wants to be laughed out of Court.
The only purpose that The Smith Family fullfilled was they they saw someone carrying a child at approximately the right time.
I don't know if it was Madeleine, but the FACT that this persons has never come forward might suggest that it was.
Does anyone actually believe that an innocent bystander would have said nothing?
Not only him, but if he was innocently carrying his child to somewhere from somewhere then there must be other people from those places who would also know it was an innocent sighting. One might expect a mother to report that it was her son collecting his daughter from her home, or a wife saying that it was her husband picking up their child from her mother's who had been babysitting for them etc. And yet nothing - not a word. Apart from the similarities in their descriptions - the deafening silence resulting from both JT and the Smith's sighting strongly suggests that it was the same person.
Oh my goodness. I hadn't even thought about that. Not even the mother of the child came forward. Or anyone else. And it was never a singular thing. Someone else must have known.
Shit, I lose the words on occasions. But The Smith Family saw a man carrying a child.
Actually, I can't say that it wasn't Gerry McCann, but there is a bit more to it. Where did he go and then what did he do when he was back at The Ranch when Kate raised the alarm some ten minutes later? Some ten minutes after he was supposedly seen.
Always Logistics. Mathematics. Not possible.
And do you know what? I don't really care anymore.
-
Did the PJ issue a call for anyone to come forward if they were the people seen at the time? By Tanner and the Smiths?
-
No. There was evidence collected that still is evidence against them- means and opportunity to start with. They still has means and opportunity even if the Dogs and DNA were not admissible evidence.
Do you know how stupid that sounds debunker?? Evidence against them was considered and rejected. End off unless and until such time as substantial new CORROBORATIVE EVIDENCE is found.
And Marthas post is not false, the evidence is that there is no evidence of criminality.
NO EVIDENCE NO ARGUIDO STATUS NO CULPABILITY NO PROSECUTION NO CASE TO ANSWER
You are mis-using English.
I have produced cites; you have produced none.
This is as bad as arguing with creationists- all bluster and no cites.
Debunker. I love you half to death because I know who you are, and that you are a kind person. And that you will give anyone the benefit of the doubt. And often beyond that. You also know that I have some similar thoughts and experience on any such subject because I have been involved on occasions with the dregs of society. And felt at least some understanding.
But can you please explain to me for why you want to raise doubts about The McCanns, even semantically?
You have no more evidence than any of us have. Or am I just thick? Is there something about me that is too stupid to understand what you are saying. Are you saying that there is nothing? Or that there is something?
I really need to know, because I will travel nowhere until I do.
Evidence is any INFORMATION, true or false, probative or not that could be referred to in deciding a case or making a scientific study.
IT is totally true that there is no PROBATIVE EVIDENCE against the McCanns.
Probative Evidence is a sub-set of all Evidence that could be given against the McCanns.
Saying that there is NO EVIDENCE is to misunderstand the nature of evidence and what it means in the real world.
For instance, there is good evidence that the world is flat- we see a straight horizon when we look out to sea and have no sense impression of living on a spherical world. That is evidence for a flat earth- it is information that could be adduced to prove that the earth is flat. It happens to be untrue and therefore is neither acceptable in scientific argument, nor in any way probative.
All the dictionaries and law texts agree that Evidence is truth-value free- merely information.
Gosh. I don't see a straight horizon. I see a spherical thing. It encompasses me. It goes around me. It is on all sides of me. But you only get the true sense if you are at sea.
Do you actually know what the Hoi Poloi see? Has it never crossed your mind that some of them aren't quite so stupid?
Sadly, they only see all things that are bad, which has actually got nothing to do with a flat earth.. Only to do with their conception.
-
Did the PJ issue a call for anyone to come forward if they were the people seen at the time? By Tanner and the Smiths?
Probably not. But you might ask for why not. No one actually knew anything about the Smith's sighting until many months later. And too bloody late by then. Not that it would have made any difference.
One can only ask for why Goncalo Amaral suddenly decided that it was important some months later.
Actually, as things go, it probably was. But you see, far too many people were allowed to leave Praia da Luz, and were never questioned until it was far too late
-
I don't know why people are of the view that the person Jane Tanner alledgedly saw at 9.15 or so is the same person the Smith group saw at 10.00 or so. The descriptions of him are not identical, they differ in a couple of respects, in appearance, hair and face, and in where they were going. Not to mention one of the Smiths said the child had a long sleeved pyjama top on and trousers and Kate says Madeleine was wearing short sleeved pyjama top that night and that Jane had seen bare arms, not that I read that anywhere in Jane Tanners statements, was that a Kate porkie? and the bottoms were shorts.
These pyjamas were what Amaral purchased, as being the same as Madeleine wore.
http://www.mccannfiles.com/id30.html
-
Benice, it is only your opinion that there is strong evidence that the two sightings were of the same man and child, the actual evidence says otherwise.
What evidence would that be please?
IMO there are far too many similarities in the descriptions for it to be put down to coincidence - particularly the observations from both JT and the Smiths that the man did not look like a tourist, the child had bare feet and was wearing light coloured trousers possibly pajamas, and was not covered by a blanket even though the night was chilly.
I'm no mathematician, but surely the odds of it being two different men - both being around the same age, height, build, colouring, and wearing similar clothing of similar hue, both carrying a child, uncovered, with bare feet and wearing light coloured trousers, both in the same area, on the same night within the same hour, and both deciding not to come forward must be absolutely phenomenal?
-
I have just wasted a whole thirty minutes of my life.
I have read the entire thread looking for evidence of criminality against the McCanns.
Unfortunately, though there have been lots of dictionary definitions etc. there has been no evidence of criminality posted.
Just two comments from me.
1. Some people claim the dog alerts are evidence of criminality. They are not. They have no evidential reliability.
2. A philosophical discussion about the nature of evidence (which it appears to me what debunker is attempting to force here)is a completely different matter to dealing with the nature of evidence of criminality. There are many kinds of evidence and it is sheer folly to think that all have application in legal matters. Criminality is decided on evidence which has to be significantly more conclusive (to a standard of probability beyond reasonable doubt) than pure philosophical evidence. Bayesian evidence such as the fact that the majority of Portuguese people are more likely to have been involved in whatever happened to Madeleine McCann than the majority of English people because they were nearer to the event is evidence in only a philosophical framework, not a legal one. Neither does evidence based on satisfaction theory equate with evidence of criminality. Its not evidence of criminality on the part of the McCanns, for example, that a muddled time line exists and such muddled timelines have been found in previous situations where guilt has been proven. Philosophers would make very, very poor judges.
-
Benice, it is only your opinion that there is strong evidence that the two sightings were of the same man and child, the actual evidence says otherwise.
What evidence would that be please?
IMO there are far too many similarities in the descriptions for it to be put down to coincidence - particularly the observations from both JT and the Smiths that the man did not look like a tourist, the child had bare feet and was wearing light coloured trousers possibly pajamas, and was not covered by a blanket even though the night was chilly.
I'm no mathematician, but surely the odds of it being two different men - both being around the same age, height, build, colouring, and wearing similar clothing of similar hue, both carrying a child, uncovered, with bare feet and wearing light coloured trousers, both in the same area, on the same night within the same hour, and both deciding not to come forward must be absolutely phenomenal?
I am a Mathematician, And with some sense of Logistics. And as it happens, there is a miniscule possibility of The McCanns having been involved in the disappearance of their daughter. But it is so miniscule as not to be worth the time of anyone's day, and certainly not in the disposing of her body afterwards, never to be found, twice. It is as simple as that. No one could be that clever.
Or Could they be?
-
Philosophers would make very, very poor judges.
Who is judging here ?
-
the disposing of her body afterwards, never to be found, twice. It is as simple as that. No one could be that clever.
Or Could they be?
??? As simple as what ? Yes of course they could be...
-
Philosophers would make very, very poor judges.
Who is judging here ?
Who is saying anyone is judging here?
Though, I do judge people on their lies, especially academics.
-
Philosophers would make very, very poor judges.
Who is judging here ?
Certainly not you.
-
Philosophers would make very, very poor judges.
Who is judging here ?
Who is saying anyone is judging here?
Though, I do judge people on their lies, especially academics.
At least it's clear.
-
Benice, it is only your opinion that there is strong evidence that the two sightings were of the same man and child, the actual evidence says otherwise.
What evidence would that be please?
IMO there are far too many similarities in the descriptions for it to be put down to coincidence - particularly the observations from both JT and the Smiths that the man did not look like a tourist, the child had bare feet and was wearing light coloured trousers possibly pajamas, and was not covered by a blanket even though the night was chilly.
I'm no mathematician, but surely the odds of it being two different men - both being around the same age, height, build, colouring, and wearing similar clothing of similar hue, both carrying a child, uncovered, with bare feet and wearing light coloured trousers, both in the same area, on the same night within the same hour, and both deciding not to come forward must be absolutely phenomenal?
I am a Mathematician, And with some sense of Logistics. And as it happens, there is a miniscule possibility of The McCanns having been involved in the disappearance of their daughter. But it is so miniscule as not to be worth the time of anyone's day, and certainly not in the disposing of her body afterwards, never to be found, twice. It is as simple as that. No one could be that clever.
Or Could they be?
Not in my world Eleanor, because not only would they BOTH have to be criminal masterminds, as well as Oscar winning actors, they would also BOTH have to be raving psychopaths to be able to commit such an unspeakable crime and then casually stroll over to the Tapas restaurant and enjoy a meal afterwards in a calm and relaxed manner as if nothing had happened. Particularly as they would know all the time that in a hour or so all hell was going to break loose - when they raised the alarm. IMO Their friends would also ALL have to be mentally deranged or terminally stupid to agree to help them cover up the death and disposal of a child which some claim is what happened.
There is no evidence at all of any of the above being the case - and therefore no reason to give it any credence whatsoever.
-
Philosophers would make very, very poor judges.
Who is judging here ?
Who is saying anyone is judging here?
Though, I do judge people on their lies, especially academics.
At least it's clear.
What is clear?
-
Benice, it is only your opinion that there is strong evidence that the two sightings were of the same man and child, the actual evidence says otherwise.
What evidence would that be please?
IMO there are far too many similarities in the descriptions for it to be put down to coincidence - particularly the observations from both JT and the Smiths that the man did not look like a tourist, the child had bare feet and was wearing light coloured trousers possibly pajamas, and was not covered by a blanket even though the night was chilly.
I'm no mathematician, but surely the odds of it being two different men - both being around the same age, height, build, colouring, and wearing similar clothing of similar hue, both carrying a child, uncovered, with bare feet and wearing light coloured trousers, both in the same area, on the same night within the same hour, and both deciding not to come forward must be absolutely phenomenal?
I am a Mathematician, And with some sense of Logistics. And as it happens, there is a miniscule possibility of The McCanns having been involved in the disappearance of their daughter. But it is so miniscule as not to be worth the time of anyone's day, and certainly not in the disposing of her body afterwards, never to be found, twice. It is as simple as that. No one could be that clever.
Or Could they be?
Not in my world Eleanor, because not only would they BOTH have to be criminal masterminds, as well as Oscar winning actors, they would also BOTH have to be raving psychopaths to be able to commit such an unspeakable crime and then casually stroll over to the Tapas restaurant and enjoy a meal afterwards in a calm and relaxed manner as if nothing had happened. Particularly as they would know all the time that in a hour or so all hell was going to break loose - when they raised the alarm. IMO Their friends would also ALL have to be mentally deranged or terminally stupid to agree to help them cover up the death and disposal of a child which some claim is what happened.
There is no evidence at all of any of the above being the case - and therefore no reason to give it any credence whatsoever.
Sure, then why do you give it some credence mentioning it ?
" be able to commit such an unspeakable crime and then casually stroll over to the Tapas restaurant and enjoy a meal afterwards in a calm and relaxed manner as if nothing had happened." Who believe this ?
-
Benice, it is only your opinion that there is strong evidence that the two sightings were of the same man and child, the actual evidence says otherwise.
What evidence would that be please?
IMO there are far too many similarities in the descriptions for it to be put down to coincidence - particularly the observations from both JT and the Smiths that the man did not look like a tourist, the child had bare feet and was wearing light coloured trousers possibly pajamas, and was not covered by a blanket even though the night was chilly.
I'm no mathematician, but surely the odds of it being two different men - both being around the same age, height, build, colouring, and wearing similar clothing of similar hue, both carrying a child, uncovered, with bare feet and wearing light coloured trousers, both in the same area, on the same night within the same hour, and both deciding not to come forward must be absolutely phenomenal?
I am a Mathematician, And with some sense of Logistics. And as it happens, there is a miniscule possibility of The McCanns having been involved in the disappearance of their daughter. But it is so miniscule as not to be worth the time of anyone's day, and certainly not in the disposing of her body afterwards, never to be found, twice. It is as simple as that. No one could be that clever.
Or Could they be?
Not in my world Eleanor, because not only would they BOTH have to be criminal masterminds, as well as Oscar winning actors, they would also BOTH have to be raving psychopaths to be able to commit such an unspeakable crime and then casually stroll over to the Tapas restaurant and enjoy a meal afterwards in a calm and relaxed manner as if nothing had happened. Particularly as they would know all the time that in a hour or so all hell was going to break loose - when they raised the alarm. IMO Their friends would also ALL have to be mentally deranged or terminally stupid to agree to help them cover up the death and disposal of a child which some claim is what happened.
There is no evidence at all of any of the above being the case - and therefore no reason to give it any credence whatsoever.
Sure, then why do you give it some credence mentioning it ?
" be able to commit such an unspeakable crime and then casually stroll over to the Tapas restaurant and enjoy a meal afterwards in a calm and relaxed manner as if nothing had happened." Who believe this ?
Many of the sceptics believe it - do you?
-
I'd like to address the protestation that it would be impossible for the McCanns to appear 'normal' in a situation where they were aware that some tragedy had befallen their child
Within a matter of days of their three year old daughter having been snatched from her bed, and carried off into the darkness by a predator ( according to them ) the McCanns were photographed smiling broadly as they left church on what would have been their daughter's fourth birthday
Within two weeks of Madeleine's disappearance both Kate and Gerry were going for runs, and Gerry was playing tennis with the the Mark Warner tennis coach. There were no tears when interviewed, and Gerry McCann was filmed on a balcony, laughing and gesturing animatedly
When people remarked that all this seemed a bit 'off' they were scolded for not understanding that how people deal with personal tragedy is entirely unpredicible, and that no-one knows how they might react until they are faced with that trauma themselves
Which always sounded fair and reasonable to me
Here's the question though ... how can any of us predict how the McCanns would have behaved that night ( if they were aware that some tragedy had occurred ) ?
We accept that their situation is outside anything we can imagine, and their behaviour entirely unpredictible as a consequence ... so how can we say, with certainty, that they would not have been able to behave 'normally' ?
-
Many of the sceptics believe it - do you?
No, but I'm a sceptic as you've surely guessed !
-
I'd like to address the protestation that it would be impossible for the McCanns to appear 'normal' in a situation where they were aware that some tragedy had befallen their child
Within a matter of days of their three year old daughter having been snatched from her bed, and carried off into the darkness by a predator ( according to them ) the McCanns were photographed smiling broadly as they left church on what would have been their daughter's fourth birthday
Within two weeks of Madeleine's disappearance both Kate and Gerry were going for runs, and Gerry was playing tennis with the the Mark Warner tennis coach. There were no tears when interviewed, and Gerry McCann was filmed on a balcony, laughing and gesturing animatedly
When people remarked that all this seemed a bit 'off' they were scolded for not understanding that how people deal with personal tragedy is entirely unpredicible, and that no-one knows how they might react until they are faced with that trauma themselves
Which always sounded fair and reasonable to me
Here's the question though ... how can any of us predict how the McCanns would have behaved that night ( if they were aware that some tragedy had occurred ) ?
We accept that their situation is outside anything we can imagine, and their behaviour entirely unpredictible as a consequence ... so how can we say, with certainty, that they would not have been able to behave 'normally' ?
Oh well - these old conceptions had to surface here sooner later - condemning the McCanns because they were caught smiling; going running, playing tennis; no public displays of grief; Kate wearing earrings, having her hair done.
8()(((@#
-
Benice, it is only your opinion that there is strong evidence that the two sightings were of the same man and child, the actual evidence says otherwise.
What evidence would that be please?
IMO there are far too many similarities in the descriptions for it to be put down to coincidence - particularly the observations from both JT and the Smiths that the man did not look like a tourist, the child had bare feet and was wearing light coloured trousers possibly pajamas, and was not covered by a blanket even though the night was chilly.
I'm no mathematician, but surely the odds of it being two different men - both being around the same age, height, build, colouring, and wearing similar clothing of similar hue, both carrying a child, uncovered, with bare feet and wearing light coloured trousers, both in the same area, on the same night within the same hour, and both deciding not to come forward must be absolutely phenomenal?
I am a Mathematician, And with some sense of Logistics. And as it happens, there is a miniscule possibility of The McCanns having been involved in the disappearance of their daughter. But it is so miniscule as not to be worth the time of anyone's day, and certainly not in the disposing of her body afterwards, never to be found, twice. It is as simple as that. No one could be that clever.
Or Could they be?
Not in my world Eleanor, because not only would they BOTH have to be criminal masterminds, as well as Oscar winning actors, they would also BOTH have to be raving psychopaths to be able to commit such an unspeakable crime and then casually stroll over to the Tapas restaurant and enjoy a meal afterwards in a calm and relaxed manner as if nothing had happened. Particularly as they would know all the time that in a hour or so all hell was going to break loose - when they raised the alarm. IMO Their friends would also ALL have to be mentally deranged or terminally stupid to agree to help them cover up the death and disposal of a child which some claim is what happened.
There is no evidence at all of any of the above being the case - and therefore no reason to give it any credence whatsoever.
Sorry. I was just saying that there is a very vague and almost impossible possibility. I don't actually believe that it was possible. But then that is just me.
And since there is absolutely no possibility of it ever coming to Trial, then I think we can safely discard any possibility of the impossible.
Sheesh. What am I doing here.
-
I'd like to address the protestation that it would be impossible for the McCanns to appear 'normal' in a situation where they were aware that some tragedy had befallen their child
Within a matter of days of their three year old daughter having been snatched from her bed, and carried off into the darkness by a predator ( according to them ) the McCanns were photographed smiling broadly as they left church on what would have been their daughter's fourth birthday
Within two weeks of Madeleine's disappearance both Kate and Gerry were going for runs, and Gerry was playing tennis with the the Mark Warner tennis coach. There were no tears when interviewed, and Gerry McCann was filmed on a balcony, laughing and gesturing animatedly
When people remarked that all this seemed a bit 'off' they were scolded for not understanding that how people deal with personal tragedy is entirely unpredicible, and that no-one knows how they might react until they are faced with that trauma themselves
Which always sounded fair and reasonable to me
Here's the question though ... how can any of us predict how the McCanns would have behaved that night ( if they were aware that some tragedy had occurred ) ?
We accept that their situation is outside anything we can imagine, and their behaviour entirely unpredictible as a consequence ... so how can we say, with certainty, that they would not have been able to behave 'normally' ?
Oh well - these old conceptions had to surface here sooner later - condemning the McCanns because they were caught smiling; going running, playing tennis; no public displays of grief; Kate wearing earrings, having her hair done.
8()(((@#
Indeed.
Isn't it interesting that those who pretend to want to discuss "evidence" always seem to fall back on such matters as the impossibility of predicting behaviour.
Nobody on a forum who has seen the McCanns from media clips and interviews can have the slightest idea what the real feelings that couple were experiencing were.
Guessing as to their guilt based on watching them for a few minutes at a time on TV is lunacy. But that is what some people suggest we should do. Guessing about the way people react to trauma is also lunacy but anti McCanns make a great deal of such matters.
-
I think I am going to go to bed. Nothing to be gained from discussing nothing. There will never be a Court Case about this, so there really isn't anything worth talking about.
-
I think I am going to go to bed. Nothing to be gained from discussing nothing. There will never be a Court Case about this, so there really isn't anything worth talking about.
Precisely, because though some people want to pretend there is evidence of criminality, there actually isn't. Its all been studied by the police and prosecutors and dismissed.
-
I'd like to address the protestation that it would be impossible for the McCanns to appear 'normal' in a situation where they were aware that some tragedy had befallen their child
Within a matter of days of their three year old daughter having been snatched from her bed, and carried off into the darkness by a predator ( according to them ) the McCanns were photographed smiling broadly as they left church on what would have been their daughter's fourth birthday
Within two weeks of Madeleine's disappearance both Kate and Gerry were going for runs, and Gerry was playing tennis with the the Mark Warner tennis coach. There were no tears when interviewed, and Gerry McCann was filmed on a balcony, laughing and gesturing animatedly
When people remarked that all this seemed a bit 'off' they were scolded for not understanding that how people deal with personal tragedy is entirely unpredicible, and that no-one knows how they might react until they are faced with that trauma themselves
Which always sounded fair and reasonable to me
Here's the question though ... how can any of us predict how the McCanns would have behaved that night ( if they were aware that some tragedy had occurred ) ?
We accept that their situation is outside anything we can imagine, and their behaviour entirely unpredictible as a consequence ... so how can we say, with certainty, that they would not have been able to behave 'normally' ?
Oh well - these old conceptions had to surface here sooner later - condemning the McCanns because they were caught smiling; going running, playing tennis; no public displays of grief; Kate wearing earrings, having her hair done.
8()(((@#
I wasn't condemning the McCanns for acting in a way that some found questionble ... far from it ... I was agreeing with those who admonished that no-one knows how they might behave in such tragic and traumatic circumstances
What I was pointing out, was that, by the same token, none of us can predict whether or not it would be possible to put on a show of normalicy, in those tragic and and traumatic circumstances, if desperation called for it
We don't ... do we ?
-
It appears then that the issue of evidence against the McCanns is a complicated one according to some. For me this is not the case as I am yet to read anything which comes anywhere near to providing such evidence. Debunker can dress it up any way he likes and provide as many definitions he wants but he will never change history. Throwing the dictionary out of the pram only means he has lost the argument. 8(0(*
Icas insistence that seeing a man carrying a female child is somehow evidence against the McCanns is admirable but misconceived. All it really is is evidence of an unidentified man carrying a female child. Nothing more and nothing less. If this is the best evidence she can provide in support of her case then she too has lost the argument.
I rest my case. 8)--))
-
It appears then that the issue of evidence against the McCanns is a complicated one according to some. For me this is not the case as I am yet to read anything which comes anywhere near to providing such evidence. Debunker can dress it up any way he likes and provide as many definitions he wants but he will never change history. Throwing the dictionary out of the pram only means he has lost the argument. 8(0(*
Icas insistence that seeing a man carrying a female child is somehow evidence against the McCanns is admirable but misconceived. All it really is is evidence of an unidentified man carrying a female child. Nothing more and nothing less. If this is the best evidence she can provide in support of her case then she too has lost the argument.
I rest my case. 8)--))
I shall take "throwing the dictionary out of the pram" as a thin veil drawn over your inability to produce any independent support for you fallacious contention. Discussion and argument involve not only debate but also referencing it to something outside your own set of beliefs.
-
There appears to be some confusion among posters as to what constitutes evidence of criminal activity and in particular where it relates to the McCann's and the rest of the Tapas 9. There is a myth here so let's here your views?
My own position is that this is a myth borne out of inuendo and rumour. As far as I am concerned there is no such evidence but others including Debunker claim otherwise so nows your chance.
What is this evidence??
Absolutely right. The McCann are as clean as angels from the sky ( I hope you've not read Anatole's Falling Angels).
Nothing they ever did is suspicious, not even trying to pull out that they did 30 minutes checks on the kids, under the advice of their portuguese lawyer, in order to avoid a negligence prosecution.
Cleaning their apartment prior to the arrival of the GNR, called almost an hour later, is not suspicious. It is not suspicious that a child that lived in an apartment for 4/5 days didn't leave any DNA trace.
It is not suspicious that while the first forces (the military GNR) were called and went out for a possibly mis-strayed kid, the parents kept inside the apartment calling all their contacts in the UK instead of going out to check themselves.
I could go on, but I was advised to leave links, and as I don't have the time right now, I'll live just this considerations.
The McCann are pure angels!
-
There appears to be some confusion among posters as to what constitutes evidence of criminal activity and in particular where it relates to the McCann's and the rest of the Tapas 9. There is a myth here so let's here your views?
My own position is that this is a myth borne out of inuendo and rumour. As far as I am concerned there is no such evidence but others including Debunker claim otherwise so nows your chance.
What is this evidence??
Absolutely right. The McCann are as clean as angels from the sky ( I hope you've not read Anatole's Falling Angels).
Nothing they ever did is suspicious, not even trying to pull out that they did 30 minutes checks on the kids, under the advice of their portuguese lawyer, in order to avoid a negligence prosecution.
Cleaning their apartment prior to the arrival of the GNR, called almost an hour later, is not suspicious. It is not suspicious that a child that lived in an apartment for 4/5 days didn't leave any DNA trace.
It is not suspicious that while the first forces (the military GNR) were called and went out for a possibly mis-strayed kid, the parents kept inside the apartment calling all their contacts in the UK instead of going out to check themselves.
I could go on, but I was advised to leave links, and as I don't have the time right now, I'll live just this considerations.
The McCann are pure angels!
You are correct. There is evidence against the McCanns. But you are wrong- all the evidence is virtually meaningless in the real world.
Still waiting for those cites.
-
Luz
Cleaning their apartment prior to the arrival of the GNR
I hope you have proof of that - otherwise it is a lie
-
There appears to be some confusion among posters as to what constitutes evidence of criminal activity and in particular where it relates to the McCann's and the rest of the Tapas 9. There is a myth here so let's here your views?
My own position is that this is a myth borne out of inuendo and rumour. As far as I am concerned there is no such evidence but others including Debunker claim otherwise so nows your chance.
What is this evidence??
Absolutely right. The McCann are as clean as angels from the sky ( I hope you've not read Anatole's Falling Angels).
Nothing they ever did is suspicious, not even trying to pull out that they did 30 minutes checks on the kids, under the advice of their portuguese lawyer, in order to avoid a negligence prosecution.
Cleaning their apartment prior to the arrival of the GNR, called almost an hour later, is not suspicious. It is not suspicious that a child that lived in an apartment for 4/5 days didn't leave any DNA trace.
It is not suspicious that while the first forces (the military GNR) were called and went out for a possibly mis-strayed kid, the parents kept inside the apartment calling all their contacts in the UK instead of going out to check themselves.
I could go on, but I was advised to leave links, and as I don't have the time right now, I'll live just this considerations.
The McCann are pure angels!
You are correct. There is evidence against the McCanns. But you are wrong- all the evidence is virtually meaningless in the real world.
Still waiting for those cites.
Can someone illustrate the semantic field of "presumption" ?
-
Cleaning their apartment prior to the arrival of the GNR, called almost an hour later, is not suspicious. It is not suspicious that a child that lived in an apartment for 4/5 days didn't leave any DNA trace.
It is not suspicious that while the first forces (the military GNR) were called and went out for a possibly mis-strayed kid, the parents kept inside the apartment calling all their contacts in the UK instead of going out to check themselves.
Why are you perverting the known facts Luz? Admin should have a view on this as it is a blatant attempt to smear the family.
They did not clean the apartment Luz, they closed the window and the shutters. You cannot blame the McCanns for the fact that the GNR took nearly an hour to arrive because they were tied up at another event. Several calls were made to the police by several people and from both Portugal and the UK so your attempt to blame the McCanns for this is very weak.
Why did the PJ forensics fail to find Madeleine's DNA in apartment 5a? Could it be that they were incompetent? Not wearing gloves etc
It is another lie to say the McCanns stayed in the apartment. Gerry was between the apartment and reception where he met the GNR at around 11pm. Kate had to look after the twins. Have you got that?
-
If the authorities had removed the bedding from Madeleine's bed and submitted it for detailed forensic examination then they would have found Madeleine's DNA - and who knows - maybe some more.
But they didn't even follow that basic step.
-
that is offensive luz
-
Luz
Cleaning their apartment prior to the arrival of the GNR
I hope you have proof of that - otherwise it is a lie
Read through the files, I will not support lazy kiddos, sorry.
-
that is offensive luz
Why is it offensive? I've only used one of my favorite sculpting photos to make a point. What are you? A Vatican police?
-
AnneGuedes
You're right there's no evidence the place was cleaned
luz says the Mccanns cleaned it before GNR arrived
-
Luz
Cleaning their apartment prior to the arrival of the GNR
I hope you have proof of that - otherwise it is a lie
Read through the files, I will not support lazy kiddos, sorry.
Luz, I am really lost as to where you source your information.
-
that is offensive luz
Why is it offensive? I've only used one of my favorite sculpting photos to make a point. What are you? A Vatican police?
it was not the picture - it was your words that were offensive
-
that is offensive luz
Why is it offensive? I've only used one of my favorite sculpting photos to make a point. What are you? A Vatican police?
it was not the picture - it was your words that were offensive
Forget it! Not even going to respond...
-
AnneGuedes
You're right there's no evidence the place was cleaned
luz says the Mccanns cleaned it before GNR arrived
you 8)><(
OHHHHH, go get the school principal to call me in.
-
That's completely false Anne. The Ocean Club telephoned the police immediately they placed their missing child plan into operation around 10.15pm. If you read the GNR statements and in particular the one by the officer in charge that night you will find that they received several calls but were unable to send a patrol as the only one was already tied up with another call. The patrol got to Praia da Luz as fast as they could after being alerted and arrived at 11pm.
Amaral didn't even arrive until midnight so explain that too please??
The call to GNR is registered at 22:41 and they arrived 10 minutes later. The PJ was not called until at least after 10min past midnightm when the GNR started to suspect that was not just a case of a wandering child.
(and no, I will not direct you to the files, you know were they are, move your fingers and get there)
Where is the EVIDENCE they cleaned the apartment?
-
Luz knows there's no evidence of cleaning up. There's only, and it's a fact, the disturbing disturbance or rather alteration of the crime scene.
-
Luz
Cleaning their apartment prior to the arrival of the GNR
I hope you have proof of that - otherwise it is a lie
Read through the files, I will not support lazy kiddos, sorry.
So once again you have failed to provide any evidence for your claim. I am (after so many failures on your part) entitled to presume that is because you have no evidence and are just lying.
Do you not even understand that the rules of this forum suggest you should not make claims without supporting them with evidence? Why are you so disrespectful to other members of this forum?
-
I don't know why people are of the view that the person Jane Tanner alledgedly saw at 9.15 or so is the same person the Smith group saw at 10.00 or so. The descriptions of him are not identical, they differ in a couple of respects, in appearance, hair and face, and in where they were going. Not to mention one of the Smiths said the child had a long sleeved pyjama top on and trousers and Kate says Madeleine was wearing short sleeved pyjama top that night and that Jane had seen bare arms, not that I read that anywhere in Jane Tanners statements, was that a Kate porkie? and the bottoms were shorts.
These pyjamas were what Amaral purchased, as being the same as Madeleine wore.
http://www.mccannfiles.com/id30.html
Mr Amaral went and bought an identical set of Madeleine's pyjamas? I learn something new everyday here. Can you quote for this please?
-
I don't know why people are of the view that the person Jane Tanner alledgedly saw at 9.15 or so is the same person the Smith group saw at 10.00 or so. The descriptions of him are not identical, they differ in a couple of respects, in appearance, hair and face, and in where they were going. Not to mention one of the Smiths said the child had a long sleeved pyjama top on and trousers and Kate says Madeleine was wearing short sleeved pyjama top that night and that Jane had seen bare arms, not that I read that anywhere in Jane Tanners statements, was that a Kate porkie? and the bottoms were shorts.
These pyjamas were what Amaral purchased, as being the same as Madeleine wore.
http://www.mccannfiles.com/id30.html
Mr Amaral went and bought an identical set of Madeleine's pyjamas? I learn something new everyday here. Can you quote for this please?
YEP 8-)(--)
To: Police Scientific Laboratory
Lisbon
5th June 2007
Subject: Sending of Pyjamas
The present inquiry investigates the disappearance of Madeleine McCann on 3rd May 2007. I am herewith delivering to the Police Scientific Laboratory a pair of girl's pyjamas.
The Pyjamas are from Marks and Spencers, size 2 to 3 years -97 cm.
The pyjamas are composed of two pieces: camisole type without buttons and half sleeves, pink with designs, letters and tracing in white with (small) floral patterns, the right pyjama bottom leg has a design (smaller size) which is identical to that of the camisole.
The pyjamas being sent are 'equal' in make, model, size, colours and designs as well as presumably the texture, to those the little girl was wearing at the time of her disappearance. The article sent serves for eventual comparisons with fibres collected by the competent officers of the Police Scientific Lab, within the scope of the current investigation.
With compliments
Signed
The Coordinator of the Criminal Investigation
Goncalo Amaral
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/PORTUGUESE-FORENSIC.htm
-
It seems that Redblossom does learn something new every day.
-
OK DCI, but you havent proven your assertion that it was Mr Amaral who went out and bought them. How does this link with the Mccanns holding up a pair of identical pyjamas on the same day on Crimewatch on 5th June! Not saying the PJ didn't, just making sure you are not mistaken.
-
OK DCI, but you havent proven your assertion that it was Mr Amaral who went out and bought them. How does this link with the Mccanns holding up a pair of identical pyjamas on the same day on Crimewatch on 5th June! Not saying the PJ didn't, just making sure you are not mistaken.
Did I say he went out and bought them? Same date, so what.
Do you know what time they did the interview?
Do you know what time Amaral sent that email?
-
OK DCI, but you havent proven your assertion that it was Mr Amaral who went out and bought them. How does this link with the Mccanns holding up a pair of identical pyjamas on the same day on Crimewatch on 5th June! Not saying the PJ didn't, just making sure you are not mistaken.
Did I say he went out and bought them? Same date, so what.
Do you know what time they did the interview?
Do you know what time Amaral sent that email?
These pyjamas were what Amaral purchased
---
Your words. And no, I do not know any times, how silly, you made the assertion thatAmaral purchased them, you back it up. And so what if he did?
-
Nothing in this letter says the pyjamas were purchased. They were sent, that's all.
A Marks & Spencer in Portimao ? Selling those pyjamas ? If ordered those pyjamas would have directly gone to the PJ Laboratory in Lisbon.
-
Luz knows there's no evidence of cleaning up. There's only, and it's a fact, the disturbing disturbance or rather alteration of the crime scene.
What alteration of the crime scene are you thinking about, Anne?
-
Luz knows there's no evidence of cleaning up. There's only, and it's a fact, the disturbing disturbance or rather alteration of the crime scene.
What alteration of the crime scene are you thinking about, Anne?
Hi Carana !
When he arrived at the bedroom he first noticed that the door was completely open, the window was also open on one side, the external blinds almost fully raised, the curtains drawn back, MADELEINE'S bed was empty but the twins continued sleeping in their cribs. He clarifies that according to what KATE told him, that was the scene that she found when she entered the apartment.
----- Then he closed the external blinds, made his way to the outside and tried to open them, which he managed to do, much to his surprise given that he thought that that was only possible from the inside.
10th May 2007
-
Luz knows there's no evidence of cleaning up. There's only, and it's a fact, the disturbing disturbance or rather alteration of the crime scene.
What alteration of the crime scene are you thinking about, Anne?
Hi Carana !
When he arrived at the bedroom he first noticed that the door was completely open, the window was also open on one side, the external blinds almost fully raised, the curtains drawn back, MADELEINE'S bed was empty but the twins continued sleeping in their cribs. He clarifies that according to what KATE told him, that was the scene that she found when she entered the apartment.
----- Then he closed the external blinds, made his way to the outside and tried to open them, which he managed to do, much to his surprise given that he thought that that was only possible from the inside.
10th May 2007
Ok, thanks, Anne.
I can see why those who think the McCanns staged an abduction might find that suspicious.
On the other hand, people were running around trying to work out what had happened, whether she could be hiding somewhere, moving furniture, whether someone had broken in...
With hindsight, it would be easy to think that no one should have touched anything. But even the GNR did, to double-check that she really wasn't there before calling the PJ.
Hindsight is a wonderful thing but it rarely takes the context and panic of the moment into consideration.
-
Luz knows there's no evidence of cleaning up. There's only, and it's a fact, the disturbing disturbance or rather alteration of the crime scene.
What alteration of the crime scene are you thinking about, Anne?
Hi Carana !
When he arrived at the bedroom he first noticed that the door was completely open, the window was also open on one side, the external blinds almost fully raised, the curtains drawn back, MADELEINE'S bed was empty but the twins continued sleeping in their cribs. He clarifies that according to what KATE told him, that was the scene that she found when she entered the apartment.
----- Then he closed the external blinds, made his way to the outside and tried to open them, which he managed to do, much to his surprise given that he thought that that was only possible from the inside.
10th May 2007
Ok, thanks, Anne.
I can see why those who think the McCanns staged an abduction might find that suspicious.
On the other hand, people were running around trying to work out what had happened, whether she could be hiding somewhere, moving furniture, whether someone had broken in...
With hindsight, it would be easy to think that no one should have touched anything. But even the GNR did, to double-check that she really wasn't there before calling the PJ.
Hindsight is a wonderful thing but it rarely takes the context and panic of the moment into consideration.
I agree Carana. I think it's totally unreasonable to expect the McCanns and others to think and behave as policeman at such a time - when even the GNR, who could most definitely be expected to think and behave like policemen, failed to do so.
-
Could that be because the GNR the National Republican Guard are effectively a military force policing civilians?
-
Luz knows there's no evidence of cleaning up. There's only, and it's a fact, the disturbing disturbance or rather alteration of the crime scene.
What alteration of the crime scene are you thinking about, Anne?
Hi Carana !
When he arrived at the bedroom he first noticed that the door was completely open, the window was also open on one side, the external blinds almost fully raised, the curtains drawn back, MADELEINE'S bed was empty but the twins continued sleeping in their cribs. He clarifies that according to what KATE told him, that was the scene that she found when she entered the apartment.
----- Then he closed the external blinds, made his way to the outside and tried to open them, which he managed to do, much to his surprise given that he thought that that was only possible from the inside.
10th May 2007
Ok, thanks, Anne.
I can see why those who think the McCanns staged an abduction might find that suspicious.
On the other hand, people were running around trying to work out what had happened, whether she could be hiding somewhere, moving furniture, whether someone had broken in...
With hindsight, it would be easy to think that no one should have touched anything. But even the GNR did, to double-check that she really wasn't there before calling the PJ.
Hindsight is a wonderful thing but it rarely takes the context and panic of the moment into consideration.
Carana, I wouldn't say they "staged" the abduction. Had they, Mr McCann hadn't closed the window and the shutters.
For me, it would have been more than enough to see window and shutters open to convince me my child had been abducted. Why losing time looking in improbable places like a cupboard or under a bed ? I would certainly have rushed outside screaming my child's name like a poor human beast (as it happened to me once in a supermarket... no shame...).
I might have an overwhelming reptilian brain, because I wouldn't have experienced whether you could open the shutters from outside or not (the problem being mainly to avoid their noisy falling down after being released).
-
You are way off base Anne. When Gerry followed by many of the tapas 9 arrived at the apartment after Kate raised the alarm it wasn't a crime scene. First and foremost it was a little girl had wandered off from her bedroom and was thought or at least hoped to be lurking somewhere nearby....thus the immediate searches. Why do you think the Ocean Club has such a plan? Was it just for fun?
It was very natural for Gerry to close the window and the shutters to protect the sleeping twins. Maybe he should have left the window wide open and the shutters up for the entire neighbourhood to gawk in??
Too many silly conspiracy theories??
-
Luz knows there's no evidence of cleaning up. There's only, and it's a fact, the disturbing disturbance or rather alteration of the crime scene.
What alteration of the crime scene are you thinking about, Anne?
Hi Carana !
When he arrived at the bedroom he first noticed that the door was completely open, the window was also open on one side, the external blinds almost fully raised, the curtains drawn back, MADELEINE'S bed was empty but the twins continued sleeping in their cribs. He clarifies that according to what KATE told him, that was the scene that she found when she entered the apartment.
----- Then he closed the external blinds, made his way to the outside and tried to open them, which he managed to do, much to his surprise given that he thought that that was only possible from the inside.
10th May 2007
Ok, thanks, Anne.
I can see why those who think the McCanns staged an abduction might find that suspicious.
On the other hand, people were running around trying to work out what had happened, whether she could be hiding somewhere, moving furniture, whether someone had broken in...
With hindsight, it would be easy to think that no one should have touched anything. But even the GNR did, to double-check that she really wasn't there before calling the PJ.
Hindsight is a wonderful thing but it rarely takes the context and panic of the moment into consideration.
Carana, I wouldn't say they "staged" the abduction. Had they, Mr McCann hadn't closed the window and the shutters.
For me, it would have been more than enough to see window and shutters open to convince me my child had been abducted. Why losing time looking in improbable places like a cupboard or under a bed ? I would certainly have rushed outside screaming my child's name like a poor human beast (as it happened to me once in a supermarket... no shame...).
I might have an overwhelming reptilian brain, because I wouldn't have experienced whether you could open the shutters from outside or not (the problem being mainly to avoid their noisy falling down after being released).
Your mindset again. When my youngest was seven we were on a camping holiday on the Med and both boys were playing in the tent (a permanent tent from a Camping company). My older child came out while I was cooking and went off to the camp shop with my wife. Ten or fifteen minutes later I called out to the youngest and he did not respond. My first reaction was to search the tent in their bedroom and in ours and in the day area- no sign. Then I went and checked the toilets and shopwer area and looked along paths looking away from the tent. At no tiume did I think that shouting or reporting it would do any good. When I was about to get in the car and drive round the camp sight he appeared from way under our bed in the tent- he had fallen asleep.
People need to realise that people react in many ways when confronted with potential danger, some panic, some remain calm, some cry and shout, some search sensibly, some try to make sense of what happened and some people just panic. There is a wide variety of human response.
People with a hating mindset will obviously think the worst- as six years experience of this case shows!
-
Luz knows there's no evidence of cleaning up. There's only, and it's a fact, the disturbing disturbance or rather alteration of the crime scene.
What alteration of the crime scene are you thinking about, Anne?
Hi Carana !
When he arrived at the bedroom he first noticed that the door was completely open, the window was also open on one side, the external blinds almost fully raised, the curtains drawn back, MADELEINE'S bed was empty but the twins continued sleeping in their cribs. He clarifies that according to what KATE told him, that was the scene that she found when she entered the apartment.
----- Then he closed the external blinds, made his way to the outside and tried to open them, which he managed to do, much to his surprise given that he thought that that was only possible from the inside.
10th May 2007
Ok, thanks, Anne.
I can see why those who think the McCanns staged an abduction might find that suspicious.
On the other hand, people were running around trying to work out what had happened, whether she could be hiding somewhere, moving furniture, whether someone had broken in...
With hindsight, it would be easy to think that no one should have touched anything. But even the GNR did, to double-check that she really wasn't there before calling the PJ.
Hindsight is a wonderful thing but it rarely takes the context and panic of the moment into consideration.
Carana, I wouldn't say they "staged" the abduction. Had they, Mr McCann hadn't closed the window and the shutters.
For me, it would have been more than enough to see window and shutters open to convince me my child had been abducted. Why losing time looking in improbable places like a cupboard or under a bed ? I would certainly have rushed outside screaming my child's name like a poor human beast (as it happened to me once in a supermarket... no shame...).
I might have an overwhelming reptilian brain, because I wouldn't have experienced whether you could open the shutters from outside or not (the problem being mainly to avoid their noisy falling down after being released).
At face value:
- The shutter was up and the window open.
- No one had noticed anyone going in through the patio doors (let alone coming out with a bundle).
- How could she have simply vanished?
- Everyone is panicking.
- Someone could have said to check if the shutter could be lifted from outside - clearly some people did decide to try.
- Someone may have wondered if Madeleiene could have pulled up the shutters by herself and tried to check if that was likely - even though I had considered that possibility, no one there found it plausible (too young).
-
Luz knows there's no evidence of cleaning up. There's only, and it's a fact, the disturbing disturbance or rather alteration of the crime scene.
What alteration of the crime scene are you thinking about, Anne?
Hi Carana !
When he arrived at the bedroom he first noticed that the door was completely open, the window was also open on one side, the external blinds almost fully raised, the curtains drawn back, MADELEINE'S bed was empty but the twins continued sleeping in their cribs. He clarifies that according to what KATE told him, that was the scene that she found when she entered the apartment.
----- Then he closed the external blinds, made his way to the outside and tried to open them, which he managed to do, much to his surprise given that he thought that that was only possible from the inside.
10th May 2007
Ok, thanks, Anne.
I can see why those who think the McCanns staged an abduction might find that suspicious.
On the other hand, people were running around trying to work out what had happened, whether she could be hiding somewhere, moving furniture, whether someone had broken in...
With hindsight, it would be easy to think that no one should have touched anything. But even the GNR did, to double-check that she really wasn't there before calling the PJ.
Hindsight is a wonderful thing but it rarely takes the context and panic of the moment into consideration.
Carana, I wouldn't say they "staged" the abduction. Had they, Mr McCann hadn't closed the window and the shutters.
For me, it would have been more than enough to see window and shutters open to convince me my child had been abducted. Why losing time looking in improbable places like a cupboard or under a bed ? I would certainly have rushed outside screaming my child's name like a poor human beast (as it happened to me once in a supermarket... no shame...).
I might have an overwhelming reptilian brain, because I wouldn't have experienced whether you could open the shutters from outside or not (the problem being mainly to avoid their noisy falling down after being released).
Your mindset again. When my youngest was seven we were on a camping holiday on the Med and both boys were playing in the tent (a permanent tent from a Camping company). My older child came out while I was cooking and went off to the camp shop with my wife. Ten or fifteen minutes later I called out to the youngest and he did not respond. My first reaction was to search the tent in their bedroom and in ours and in the day area- no sign. Then I went and checked the toilets and shopwer area and looked along paths looking away from the tent. At no tiume did I think that shouting or reporting it would do any good. When I was about to get in the car and drive round the camp sight he appeared from way under our bed in the tent- he had fallen asleep.
People need to realise that people react in many ways when confronted with potential danger, some panic, some remain calm, some cry and shout, some search sensibly, some try to make sense of what happened and some people just panic. There is a wide variety of human response.
People with a hating mindset will obviously think the worst- as six years experience of this case shows!
Nurse Debunker, hating mindset ! You should hang your head in shame for suggesting this.
Your story is cute but I don't see in it any sign of abduction in it.
If you think that finding an open window, open shutters and a cold temperature (indicating the event is not recent) is no indication of abduction, it's your opinion. But it's not mine and I pray you to allow me thinking so.
The window in Madeleine's room remained closed, but she doesn't know if it was locked, blinds and curtains drawn. The window remained like this since the first day, night and day. She never opened it. If somebody saw the window blinds in Madeleine's room open, it was not Kate who opened them, she never saw them open.
6th Sept 2007
-
Luz knows there's no evidence of cleaning up. There's only, and it's a fact, the disturbing disturbance or rather alteration of the crime scene.
What alteration of the crime scene are you thinking about, Anne?
Hi Carana !
When he arrived at the bedroom he first noticed that the door was completely open, the window was also open on one side, the external blinds almost fully raised, the curtains drawn back, MADELEINE'S bed was empty but the twins continued sleeping in their cribs. He clarifies that according to what KATE told him, that was the scene that she found when she entered the apartment.
----- Then he closed the external blinds, made his way to the outside and tried to open them, which he managed to do, much to his surprise given that he thought that that was only possible from the inside.
10th May 2007
Ok, thanks, Anne.
I can see why those who think the McCanns staged an abduction might find that suspicious.
On the other hand, people were running around trying to work out what had happened, whether she could be hiding somewhere, moving furniture, whether someone had broken in...
With hindsight, it would be easy to think that no one should have touched anything. But even the GNR did, to double-check that she really wasn't there before calling the PJ.
Hindsight is a wonderful thing but it rarely takes the context and panic of the moment into consideration.
Carana, I wouldn't say they "staged" the abduction. Had they, Mr McCann hadn't closed the window and the shutters.
For me, it would have been more than enough to see window and shutters open to convince me my child had been abducted. Why losing time looking in improbable places like a cupboard or under a bed ? I would certainly have rushed outside screaming my child's name like a poor human beast (as it happened to me once in a supermarket... no shame...).
I might have an overwhelming reptilian brain, because I wouldn't have experienced whether you could open the shutters from outside or not (the problem being mainly to avoid their noisy falling down after being released).
Your mindset again. When my youngest was seven we were on a camping holiday on the Med and both boys were playing in the tent (a permanent tent from a Camping company). My older child came out while I was cooking and went off to the camp shop with my wife. Ten or fifteen minutes later I called out to the youngest and he did not respond. My first reaction was to search the tent in their bedroom and in ours and in the day area- no sign. Then I went and checked the toilets and shopwer area and looked along paths looking away from the tent. At no tiume did I think that shouting or reporting it would do any good. When I was about to get in the car and drive round the camp sight he appeared from way under our bed in the tent- he had fallen asleep.
People need to realise that people react in many ways when confronted with potential danger, some panic, some remain calm, some cry and shout, some search sensibly, some try to make sense of what happened and some people just panic. There is a wide variety of human response.
People with a hating mindset will obviously think the worst- as six years experience of this case shows!
Nurse Debunker, hating mindset ! You should hang your head in shame for suggesting this.
Your story is cute but I don't see in it any sign of abduction in it.
If you think that finding an open window, open shutters and a cold temperature (indicating the event is not recent) is no indication of abduction, it's your opinion. But it's not mine and I pray you to allow me thinking so.
The window in Madeleine's room remained closed, but she doesn't know if it was locked, blinds and curtains drawn. The window remained like this since the first day, night and day. She never opened it. If somebody saw the window blinds in Madeleine's room open, it was not Kate who opened them, she never saw them open.
6th Sept 2007
And thus demonstrating the thrust of the narrative- people react differently.