Was there ever any evidence of criminality against the McCanns?

[Angelo222]

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??

[Jean-Pierre]

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. 

[Angelo222]

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??

[Jean-Pierre]

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.   

[debunker]

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."

[Jean-Pierre]

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". 

[debunker]

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.

[debunker]

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.

[Jean-Pierre]

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.

     

[debunker]

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.

[Angelo222]

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???

[Angelo222]

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.

[debunker]

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.

[debunker]

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.

[Angelo222]

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.