Was there ever any evidence of criminality against the McCanns?

[Mr Moderator]

Could I remind you all that the book of criminal procedure is not a dictionary.  That which applies in Court does not necessarily apply in the outside world.

ps Please keep to the topic.

[amaraltheofficeboy]

The standards of evidence are designed to exclude false evidence

[Angelo222]

Cites and definitions aside I am still waiting to hear what this marvellous evidence of criminality which exists against the McCanns??

You claim there is some debunker so what is it?   

[icabodcrane]

Cites and definitions aside I am still waiting to hear what this marvellous evidence of criminality which exists against the McCanns??

You claim there is some debunker so what is it?   

Debunker has painstakingly explained what constitutes  'evidence'  throughout this thread

Despite that,  when you are presented with evidence of possible criminality ( by the McCanns ) you reject it it on the grounds of you, personally, not being convinced by it

You are not acknowledging that whether you are convinced by it or not, it is still evidence

Perhaps you should re-title the thread  ( again )  to word it thus :

"What evidence of criminality against the McCanns can be presented that I wil find convincing ?"

...  because, it appears to me, that is what you are really asking

[Angelo222]

We arent interested in definitions.  Hard evidence is what we want to hear >>> another new prefix   

[amaraltheofficeboy]

Is Gerry McCann saying ""F*** off, I'm not here to enjoy myself" evidence against him?  I just want to get a handle on what does and does not constitute evidence in this debate.

bump

[ferryman]

Perhaps an ego thing, but I still prefer, what evidence is also suspicious?

I find that more objective, and the answer is plain: none!

[icabodcrane]

We arent interested in definitions.  Hard evidence is what we want to hear >>> another new prefix   

Well then,  let's test your objective search for evidence against the McCanns

Martin Smith witnesses that he  is almost certain he saw Gerry McCann carrying a child at 10.00pm on the night Madeleine went missing

That is  'hard evidence'  against the McCanns

Now,  this is where you reject the evidence on the grounds that  you personally do not believe it  ...  not because it doesn't exist ...  but because you, personally,  don't believe it

I should add that I don't believe Martin Smith saw Gerry that night either,  but that does not allow me to say that what he thinks he witnessed is 'non-evidence' 

[sammy]

Perhaps an ego thing, but I still prefer, what evidence is also suspicious?

I find that more objective, and the answer is plain: none!

The [ censored word] will always find something suspicious in all the mccanns do.   
They are even being criticised for charging a nominal fee for certain search products.

[Angelo222]

We arent interested in definitions.  Hard evidence is what we want to hear >>> another new prefix   

Well then,  let's test your objective search for evidence against the McCanns

Martin Smith witnesses that he he is almost certain he saw Gerry McCann carrying a child at 10.00pm on the night Madeleine went missing

That is  'hard evidence'  aginst the McCanns

Now,  this is where you reject the evidence on the grounds that  you personally do not believe it  ...  not because it doesn't exist ...  but because you, personally,  don't believe it

I should add that I don't believe Martin Smith saw Gerry that night either,  but that does not allow me to say that what he thinks he witnessed is 'non-evidence'

Please realise that evidence means zilch without corroboration icabodcrane.  The many other members of the group said IT WAS NOT GERRY MCCANN>  thus by something like 8 votes to 1 he fails.  There is a joke in here somewhere about Specsavers but I wont indulge. 

It all comes down to balance of probabilities.  This is how the criminal justice system works.

Do read the myth section.

[debunker]

Could I remind you all that the book of criminal procedure is not a dictionary.  That which applies in Court does not necessarily apply in the outside world.

ps Please keep to the topic.

The general dictionaries (Collins, Chambers, Shorter Oxford) and Legal dictionaries support my argument.

You have produced no probative evidence for your contention yet- all we have had has been your opinions. How about a cite for the way you are mis-using the word!

[sammy]

Icabodcrane is correct when she posts that it is evidence but angello is also correct when he states that it all comes down to the balance of probabilities.   
In the end it is the majority who carry the day.

[debunker]

Isn't it a case of - there was evidence collected about the McCanns and Murat, it was reviewed by the PT authorities and they decided that in fact it did not constitute evidence of criminal activity and that therefore what we are left with is no evidence of criminal wrong-doing by the arguidos?

No. There was evidence collected that still is evidence against them- means and opportunity to start with. They still has means and opportunity even if the Dogs and DNA were not admissible evidence.

[icabodcrane]

We arent interested in definitions.  Hard evidence is what we want to hear >>> another new prefix   

Well then,  let's test your objective search for evidence against the McCanns

Martin Smith witnesses that he he is almost certain he saw Gerry McCann carrying a child at 10.00pm on the night Madeleine went missing

That is  'hard evidence'  aginst the McCanns

Now,  this is where you reject the evidence on the grounds that  you personally do not believe it  ...  not because it doesn't exist ...  but because you, personally,  don't believe it

I should add that I don't believe Martin Smith saw Gerry that night either,  but that does not allow me to say that what he thinks he witnessed is 'non-evidence'

Please realise that evidence means zilch without corroboration icabodcrane.  The many other members of the group said IT WAS NOT GERRY MCCANN>  thus by something like 8 votes to 1 he fails.

Do read the myth section.

You cannot cherry pick which witness statements to accept and which to reject

It is all  evidence

I might just as preposterously claim that the tapas group couldn't have seen Gerry at the table at 10pm because  he was carrying a child past the Smith family at that time

See what I did there  ...  I arbitrarily chose one piece of evidence over another, and presented it as fact

[debunker]

Icabodcrane is correct when she posts that it is evidence but angello is also correct when he states that it all comes down to the balance of probabilities.   
In the end it is the majority who carry the day.

The majority who write the dictionaries and legal texts that is!