Was there ever any evidence of criminality against the McCanns?

[Jean-Pierre]

I think so, Angelo.

Apart from Debunker.

But he is NOT the messiah - he is a very naughty boy....

[John]

Interesting debate so lets see what others make of it later this evening before this topic moves to the myth section.

[icabodcrane]

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

[ferryman]

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 the "evidence" (actual evidence before the facts are known) is superseded by facts that outright contradict and disprove the "evidence".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.

[icabodcrane]

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

[John]

why is the word 'em bell ish' proscribed on this forum?

It's a long story Martha but I will uncensor it now.  Thanks.

[John]

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?

[debunker]

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.

[debunker]

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?

[John]

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.

[debunker]

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.

[debunker]

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.

[John]

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?

  

[debunker]

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.

[debunker]

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.