Was there ever any evidence of criminality against the McCanns?

[Angelo222]

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?

Got it in one   

[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?

Got it in one   

As explained above, this is FALSE.

[Angelo222]

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.

Do you know how stupid that sounds debunker??   Evidence against them was considered and rejected.  End off unless and until such time as substantial new CORROBORATIVE EVIDENCE is found.


And Marthas post is not false, the evidence is that there is no evidence of criminality.

NO EVIDENCE    NO ARGUIDO STATUS     NO CULPABILITY     NO PROSECUTION     NO CASE TO ANSWER

[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.  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.

OK, let's try it another way  (  although I don't really like responding to posts that shout at me )

Let's imagine, for a moment, that the McCanns were to be charged with a criminal act at some point

Mr Smith's evidence would, almost certainly, be presented in court as evidence against them

His evidence against them might be discredited in court, or even disproven all together  ...  but it would  ( and does ) constitute evidence against them

[Angelo222]

Before you move on Ica, do you accept that the evidence by the eight or so of the Smith group takes precedence over that of Mr Smith?

....or are we to believe him just because he shouted the loudest??

[icabodcrane]

Before you move on Ica, do you accept that the evidence by the eight or so of the Smith group takes precedence over that of Mr Smith?

....or are we to believe him just because he shouted the loudest??

We cannot choose which witnesses to believe and which not to

All witnesses provide evidence. In Martin Smith's case, it was evidence against the McCanns

His evidence  exists Angelo, whether you believe it or not

[Chinagirl]

Debunker: And that FALSE evidence was still Evidence against the McCanns.

If this is the case, then every theory the [ censored word] have ever promulgated to show the McCanns as guilty is valid as "evidence against the McCanns," even the wackiest of them.  After all they do give reasons ("evidence") for their theories .....

[Benice]

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.

  I give up.

But but.. didn't the report removing their arguido status state that no 'means or opportunity' could be identified?

[Eleanor]

I don't think Mr. Smith did shout the loudest.  And he only said 60 to 80%.  Hardly damning.  The evidence from the rest of his family was ignored, by Goncalo Amaral.
So, the evidence of Mr. Smith could have been produced in a Court of Law by The Prosecution, only to be debunked by The Defence with the rest of his family.

I think I do actually understand what Debunker is saying, but it is all so frightfully pedantic.  And of no value when it comes to a Prosecution.  Of which there has been none.

There is a limit to the use of semantics.

[Angelo222]

OK, let's try it another way  (  although I don't really like responding to posts that shout at me )

Let's imagine, for a moment, that the McCanns were to be charged with a criminal act at some point

Mr Smith's evidence would, almost certainly, be presented in court as evidence against them

His evidence against them might be discredited in court, or even disproven all together  ...  but it would  ( and does ) constitute evidence against them

It would pit Mr Smith against the other numerous members of his family and show his evidence to not be credible.  No self respecting advocate would ever embarass a witness to that extent.  Even Mr Smith has now doubted what he thought he saw.

It isn't evidence against them Ica, it is merely someones perception.

[Chinagirl]

And Debunker - before you leave this board in high dudgeon, do please explain what 'INVIDATION' means used by you in a previous post.  As I said, I can't find it in my COED, or in any online lexicon.

[Angelo222]

I don't think Mr. Smith did shout the loudest.  And he only said 60 to 80%.  Hardly damning.  The evidence from the rest of his family was ignored, by Goncalo Amaral.
So, the evidence of Mr. Smith could have been produced in a Court of Law by The Prosecution, only to be debunked by The Defence with the rest of his family.

I think I do actually understand what Debunker is saying, but it is all so frightfully pedantic.  And of no value when it comes to a Prosecution.  Of which there has been none.

There is a limit to the use of semantics.

Totally agree.  Amaral chose to ignore the other members of the family as cops tend to do when they get a smidgeon of information which suits their own warped agenda.

[icabodcrane]

OK, let's try it another way  (  although I don't really like responding to posts that shout at me )

Let's imagine, for a moment, that the McCanns were to be charged with a criminal act at some point

Mr Smith's evidence would, almost certainly, be presented in court as evidence against them

His evidence against them might be discredited in court, or even disproven all together  ...  but it would  ( and does ) constitute evidence against them

It would pit Mr Smith against the other numerous members of his family and show his evidence to not be credible.  No self respecting advocate would ever embarass a witness to that extent.  Even Mr Smith has now doubted what he thought he saw.

It isn't evidence against them Ica, it is merely someones perception.

Martin Smith's evidence against the McCanns would be admissible in court

Whether it might, subsequently, be discredited or disproven is a possibility   ...  the point is, though,  that  there exists evidence against the McCanns that would be considered as such in a court of law

 

[Angelo222]

OK, let's try it another way  (  although I don't really like responding to posts that shout at me )

Let's imagine, for a moment, that the McCanns were to be charged with a criminal act at some point

Mr Smith's evidence would, almost certainly, be presented in court as evidence against them

His evidence against them might be discredited in court, or even disproven all together  ...  but it would  ( and does ) constitute evidence against them

It would pit Mr Smith against the other numerous members of his family and show his evidence to not be credible.  No self respecting advocate would ever embarass a witness to that extent.  Even Mr Smith has now doubted what he thought he saw.

It isn't evidence against them Ica, it is merely someones perception.

Martin Smith's evidence against the McCanns would be admissible in court

Whether it might, subsequently, be discredited or disproven is a possibility   ...  the point is, though,  that  there exists evidence against the McCanns that would be considered as such in a court of law

Evidence of what Ica?   He thought he saw someone???        

Sounds like a scene out of Faulty Towers.  Manuel hola!!

Afraid it doesn't cut any mustard my dear.

[icabodcrane]

OK, let's try it another way  (  although I don't really like responding to posts that shout at me )

Let's imagine, for a moment, that the McCanns were to be charged with a criminal act at some point

Mr Smith's evidence would, almost certainly, be presented in court as evidence against them

His evidence against them might be discredited in court, or even disproven all together  ...  but it would  ( and does ) constitute evidence against them

It would pit Mr Smith against the other numerous members of his family and show his evidence to not be credible.  No self respecting advocate would ever embarass a witness to that extent.  Even Mr Smith has now doubted what he thought he saw.

It isn't evidence against them Ica, it is merely someones perception.

Martin Smith's evidence against the McCanns would be admissible in court

Whether it might, subsequently, be discredited or disproven is a possibility   ...  the point is, though,  that  there exists evidence against the McCanns that would be considered as such in a court of law

Evidence of what Ica?   He thought he saw someone.        

He believes he saw Gerry McCann  carrying a child on the night Madeleine went missing

...  and that evidence against the McCanns would be admissible in court