Was there ever any evidence of criminality against the McCanns?

[John]

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?

[debunker]

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?

[Eleanor]

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.

[AnneGuedes]

John, there are dogs' alerts and there is tracker dogs' route.

[icabodcrane]

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

[registrar]

everytime a Bounty bar

some folks never learn

[Redblossom]

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

[AnneGuedes]

Corroborating presumptions are stronger that simple presumptions...

[registrar]

'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

[Eleanor]

'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? 

[registrar]

'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

[Eleanor]

'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.

[registrar]

thank you for your kind permission

[John]

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   

[debunker]

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.