Was there ever any evidence of criminality against the McCanns?

[debunker]

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.

Every cite I have given states in one way or another that EVIDENCE is not to be confused with ADMISSIBLE or PROBATIVE EVIDENCE!

You need a different thread if that is what you want.

Go back, calmly, read the facts that I have posted, then tell me that any fact or object (whether admissible, probative or not) is evidence per se.

[Carana]

I'm listening, Debunker, but I think we're all getting lost in semantics.

If you mean that e.g., the fact that Kate's fingerprints were found on the window could be used as evidence against her in a Bongabongaland prosecution, then yes, I suppose it could be.

[registrar]

And I really don't care whether I become a 'hero member' on this forum like Debunker

regardless of number of posts

[icabodcrane]

OK,  well let's take the dogs' evidence first

We agree it is  'evidence'  ( not conclusive or reliable without supporting forensic evidence,  but evidence nonetheless )

So now we question whether it is evidence 'against'  the McCanns, ( or of criminal wrong-doing on their part )

I would say, it most certainly  is

The dogs' evidence, whilst inconclusive, suggests there is a possibility that the missing child was not abducted at all  ...  that she may have died, there in the apartment

The evidence, therefore, is not supportive of the McCann's stated position ...  it is directly against it 

 

[registrar]

same dogs/same handler

alerted to a coconut shell in Jersey

handler (Grime) pocketed 90k

Bob's your uncle

[ferryman]

same dogs/same handler

alerted to a coconut shell in Jersey

handler (Grime) pocketed 90k

Bob's your uncle

Yep!

And to be clear, that is not tabloid hype.

It is confirmed in an official report of Wiltshire police about the Haut de la Garenne inquiry.

[Carana]

Hmmm. Eddie didn't just alert at a coconut that humans assumed to be a bit of skull. That's not quite fair.

[debunker]

I'm listening, Debunker, but I think we're all getting lost in semantics.

If you mean that e.g., the fact that Kate's fingerprints were found on the window could be used as evidence against her in a Bongabongaland prosecution, then yes, I suppose it could be.

Yes. that is evidence that could be used against her.

All the cites I have given cover this, but people are so certain that their incorrect beliefs are correct, the information is not going in

[debunker]

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.

OK,  well let's take the dogs' evidence first

We agree it is  'evidence'  ( not conclusive or reliable without supporting forensic evidence,  but evidence nonetheless )

So now we question whether it is evidence 'against'  the McCanns, ( or of criminal wrong-doing on their part )

I would say, it most certainly  is

The dogs' evidence, whilst inconclusive, suggests there is a possibility that the missing child was not abducted at all  ...  that she may have died, there in the apartment

The evidence, therefore, is not supportive of the McCann's stated position ...  it is directly against it

Exactly. Can these people not read and comprehend?

[registrar]

what are you saying - if you are actually saying anything?

[debunker]

what are you saying - if you are actually saying anything?

Evidence is any statement, object or other material that may be used to prove a case against someone.

That is what all the cites say.

[ferryman]

Hmmm. Eddie didn't just alert at a coconut that humans assumed to be a bit of skull. That's not quite fair.

He made lots of other alerts in Jersey as well.

But it is clearly stated in an extract you yourself found that a human spotted what he took to be a skull, was given to Eddie to test (in much the same way as he tested an ignition key in PdL) and which produced a reaction suggestive of cadaver odour ...

[registrar]

Hmmm. Eddie didn't just alert at a coconut that humans assumed to be a bit of skull. That's not quite fair.

He made lots of other alerts in Jersey as well.

But it is clearly stated in an extract you yourself found that a human spotted what he took to be a skull, was given to Eddie to test (in much the same way as he tested an ignition key in PdL) and which produced a reaction suggestive of cadaver odour ...

the wonderdogs can bark and wag their tails until the cows come home

no doing until their alerts are backed up by scientific proof

Grime failed both in Luz and Jersey - did he ever pay back his substantial earnings for

a piece of pseudo - science?

I think not

[Carana]

Hmmm. Eddie didn't just alert at a coconut that humans assumed to be a bit of skull. That's not quite fair.

He made lots of other alerts in Jersey as well.

But it is clearly stated in an extract you yourself found that a human spotted what he took to be a skull, was given to Eddie to test (in much the same way as he tested an ignition key in PdL) and which produced a reaction suggestive of cadaver odour ...

Hmmm. I don't think that that is what I said.

My understanding is that Eddie alerts to various substances within his parameters of training. It is then up to humans to explore what caused the alert. In PdL there was no evidence of any kind.

[ferryman]

Hmmm. Eddie didn't just alert at a coconut that humans assumed to be a bit of skull. That's not quite fair.

He made lots of other alerts in Jersey as well.

But it is clearly stated in an extract you yourself found that a human spotted what he took to be a skull, was given to Eddie to test (in much the same way as he tested an ignition key in PdL) and which produced a reaction suggestive of cadaver odour ...

Hmmm. I don't think that that is what I said.

My understanding is that Eddie alerts to various substances within his parameters of training. It is then up to humans to explore what caused the alert. In PdL there was no evidence of any kind.

If correct procedure was followed, Eddie will have tested the area beforehand for pre-existing scents, leaving open only the possibility that he reacted to the coconut.

If correct procedure was followed ...