Was there ever any evidence of criminality against the McCanns?

[debunker]

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

[debunker]

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

[debunker]

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.

[debunker]

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

[ferryman]

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 ...

[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.

[debunker]

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.

[debunker]

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.

[registrar]

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

[debunker]

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.

[icabodcrane]

'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 

[debunker]

'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.

[debunker]

Still waiting for the first post with a cite rather than an opinion.

[registrar]

Still waiting for the first post with a cite rather than an opinion.

Like you cite Wikipedia?

hero member

[Mr Moderator]

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.