Was there ever any evidence of criminality against the McCanns?

[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

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

[debunker]

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!

[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?

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.

[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

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 

[Benice]

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.

[AnneGuedes]

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.

[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.

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"

[AnneGuedes]

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 ?

[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.

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.

[John]

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.

[debunker]

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.

[Eleanor]

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.                     

[icabodcrane]

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

[amaraltheofficeboy]

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?

[DevilsAdvocate]

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 ?