Was there ever any evidence of criminality against the McCanns?

[John]

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

Lets see, what is the dogs evidence?

A dog reacted to something in an apartment in which literally dozens of people had been since the abduction.  The reaction may have nothing whatsoever to do with Madeleine or even the McCann family rendering this particular evidence of no consequential value to anyone really.

Next! 

[John]

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

Evidence that could be used against her?  Was she not allowed to touch anything in the apartment? Absolutely unbelievable.   

[icabodcrane]

No intruder is going to take a risk of discovery over a corpse Anne and he certainly isn't going to walk around a busy tourist town at night with her in his arms. I am surprised you even suggested such a scenario.

As for evidence against the McCanns I fear nobody has come up with any so this can now be consigned to the myth bin.

If this forum declares that it is a myth that any evidence against the McCanns  exists   ...  not just  that the evidence is unreliable  ...  but that it does  not exist ,  then it will be utterly discredited

I will certainly be bowing out

[John]

It is up to the members to provide this evidence which can show culpability in a crime.  Up until now nobody has been able to do so.

Don't you think if there were any the Polícia Judiciária would have acted upon it?

[icabodcrane]

It is up to the members to provide this evidence which can show culpability in a crime.  Up until now nobody has been able to do so.

Don't you think if there were any the Polícia Judiciária would have acted upon it?

If you want to say that is a myth that there is any 'proof'  against the McCanns,  then do it ...  that is what the Portuguese prosecutor decided afterall  (  although it is not really a myth is it ...  because no-one claims it )   

To say it is a myth that any evidence against them exists at all, though  (   even dodgy evidence )  is simply untrue,  and making that claim will leave the forum with no credibility whatsoever

[debunker]

No intruder is going to take a risk of discovery over a corpse Anne and he certainly isn't going to walk around a busy tourist town at night with her in his arms. I am surprised you even suggested such a scenario.

As for evidence against the McCanns I fear nobody has come up with any so this can now be consigned to the myth bin.

If this forum declares that it is a myth that any evidence against the McCanns  exists   ...  not just  that the evidence is unreliable  ...  but that it does  not exist ,  then it will be utterly discredited

I will certainly be bowing out

I would tend to agree.

If it can make a decision that is so obviously at variance with the facts, then it will have lost all credibility.

This is not a Pro versus Anti issue. It is a question of whether the forum is Fact based and dedicated to using the words of the English language conventionally rather than conveniently.

Perhaps we could do with a poll on this with an explanation of what is being said.

[debunker]

It is up to the members to provide this evidence which can show culpability in a crime.  Up until now nobody has been able to do so.

Don't you think if there were any the Polícia Judiciária would have acted upon it?

They did act on it. They did a preliminary investigation which provided basic evidence that the Mccanns could have committed a crime, they questioned them, they made them arguido (which status at that time required there to be 'evidence' against them under Portuguese law and which the following day would have required there to be 'reasonable evidence- a change forced by the ECHR. They considered all the evidence and made a final report summing the evidence up and recommended the Prosecutor to charge the McCanns. The Prosecutor reviwed the evidence in depth and decided that there was no case to answer.

If there was no evidence at all against the McCanns, the process could not have started at all. It is illegal under Portuguese law to force the status of arguido on someone without evidence (now reasonable evidnece.)

[debunker]

Here are the words of a Portuguese Law expert (my emphasis):

Detectives invoke arguido status on someone as a preliminary to an arrest being made or charges brought, a Portuguese law expert, Lita Gale, told Guardian Unlimited today.

"If you are an arguido they have to have suspicion that a crime has been committed by that person," she said.

(My note- in order to have a 'suspicion, one needs evidence against the person- no evidence, no suspicion)

She added that when someone's status moves from that of a witness to an arguido, the police interview technique changes.

"Depending on the answers they may be moving towards a prosecution. If you cannot provide an alibi or the right answers they may move to prosecute. This is a serious moment. The suspect may be close to being charged," Ms Gale said.

Technically, police should treat someone as an arguido as soon as they have sufficient evidence. However, in some circumstances they may hold back to give somebody "a false sense of security", she added.

In practical terms, a person has to be declared an arguido before he or she can be arrested. Police may also ask a local court to place restrictions on a person's movement and oblige them to not leave the country.

Once a case file is completed, the police pass it to the public ministry, the equivalent of the crown prosecution service, which decides whether an "acusacao" or indictment is brought.

(My Note: The case file is a summsry of all the evidence applicable to the case)



http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2007/sep/07/ukcrime.madeleinemccann2

[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.

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

Evidence that could be used against her?  Was she not allowed to touch anything in the apartment? Absolutely unbelievable.   

Have you ever read the so-called evidence against Leonor?


aab) during those interviews about the case, arguida BB sometimes mentioned her daughter in the past tense and wore a black blouse;

http://joana-morais.blogspot.com/2009/07/supreme-court-of-justice-joana-case.html

[Chinagirl]

Perhaps it would be a better question to ask what evidence of criminality exists against the McCanns.  And we should define what crime it is they are suspected of having committed.

[Angelo222]

Perhaps it would be a better question to ask what evidence of criminality exists against the McCanns.  And we should define what crime it is they are suspected of having committed.

It goes without saying but obviously there are those who will twist any thread title to suit their own agenda.

Debunker is now using at best neutral evidence and at worst false evidence to try and make a point. And before he goes running to the dictionary again we all know what evidence is.  Bottom line is the PJ found that the evidence they had did NOT prove anything against the McCanns.   The evidence they thought they had against the McCanns was false and led nowhere.

The only reason why the PJ made the McCanns arguidos was because they wrongly believed that the forensics had corroborated the dog alerts.  Sadly for them they were wrong.  The dog alerts are evidence but not against the McCanns just in the same way the forensics results are evidence but not in any way shape or form against the McCanns.  QED. 

[debunker]

Perhaps it would be a better question to ask what evidence of criminality exists against the McCanns.  And we should define what crime it is they are suspected of having committed.

It goes without saying but obviously there are those who will twist any thread title to suit their own agenda.

Debunker is now using at best neutral evidence and at worst false evidence to try and make a point. And before he goes running to the dictionary again we all know what evidence is.  Bottom line is the PJ found that the evidence they had did NOT prove anything against the McCanns.   The evidence they thought they had against the McCanns was false and led nowhere.

The only reason why the PJ made the McCanns arguidos was because they wrongly believed that the forensics had corroborated the dog alerts.  Sadly for them they were wrong.  The dog alerts are evidence but not against the McCanns just in the same way the forensics results are evidence but not in any way shape or form against the McCanns.  QED.

But in legal and normal (dictionary) terms evidence does not need to be TRUTH, just an ALLEGATION or INDIVATION.

The forensics were misinterpreted but that did not make it 'NOT EVIDENCE'.

I must say that if this decision is made formal I suspect that I will withdraw from the board as it will then no longer be debating fact but merely trying to agree on its own language to suit posters' prejudices. I see Icabod also feels that way.

Choose to pervert language and you will lose two of your most frequent posters, each fencesitters, because of that decision.

[Angelo222]

There still appears to be some confusion among posters as to what constitutes evidence of criminal activity in the disappearance of Madeleine McCann and in particular where it relates to the McCann's and the rest of the Tapas 9. 

It is a myth borne out of innuendo and rumour to suggest that such evidence of criminally exists.  As far as I am concerned there is no such evidence of any criminally against the McCanns and this is evidenced by the decision of the Portuguese prosecutors not to pursue any charges against them.

I suggest you look up the meaning of neutral evidence, false evidence and idle threats debunker?

[amaraltheofficeboy]

But in legal and normal (dictionary) terms evidence does not need to be TRUTH

wouldn't that be perjury by the person presenting such "evidence" to court?

[debunker]

There still appears to be some confusion among posters as to what constitutes evidence of criminal activity in the disappearance of Madeleine McCann and in particular where it relates to the McCann's and the rest of the Tapas 9. 

It is a myth borne out of innuendo and rumour to suggest that such evidence of criminally exists.  As far as I am concerned there is no such evidence of any criminally against the McCanns and this is evidenced by the decision of the Portuguese prosecutors not to pursue any charges against them.

I suggest you look up the meaning of neutral evidence, false evidence and idle threats debunker?

I suggest that you acquaint yourself with the legal, scientific and normative definitions of the word which I have repeatedly cited.

No-one else has posted anything referenced from a neutral source.

It is not an idle thread. I am stubborn.

If you insist on listing something formally as a TRUTH which is in fact a FALSE OPINION, then I will have no further part in the board as that would call anything on the board into question.

It is not a myth that there is no probative evidence- make that a confirmed myth if you wish, but it is also a myth that there is no evidence against the McCanns- such evidence wexists, and denying it does not make it a true statement.

I will put up a Poll and let the members decide.