Was there ever any evidence of criminality against the McCanns?

[John]

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.

No prosecutor would even use Mr Smith as his evidence is frankly, absurd.

[icabodcrane]

Grasping at straws comes to mind.   

Do you disagree that Martin Smith's evidence would be admissible in a court of law as evidence against the McCanns ?

[John]

Grasping at straws comes to mind.   

Do you disagree that Martin Smith's evidence would be admissible in a court of law as evidence against the McCanns ?

Admissible yes but without corroboration pretty benign.

[Angelo222]

Grasping at straws comes to mind.   

Do you disagree that Martin Smith's evidence would be admissible in a court of law as evidence against the McCanns ?

Admissible yes but without corroboration pretty benign.

Benign??   He would be laughed out of court and down the street and he knows it.   

[AnneGuedes]

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.

It 's not like that. Only one member of Mr Smith's family, his wife, agreed with him, but she didn't want to testify (which I understand as this kind of statement isn't insignificant). The others didn't share the same feeling.  Now only his son and his daughter in law actually crossed the carrier (he passed on their left side whereas passed on the right side of Mr Smith and his wife). Aoife had another point of view : a low angle shot.

[Eleanor]

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

Not if you have any desire as a Prosecutor to retain your credibility.  No half decent Prosecutor would present a witness when he knows that certain other witnesses at the scene are going to, at the very least, refuse to agree.
Such a waste of Court time, don't you think.
This is why it never got there.

[icabodcrane]

Grasping at straws comes to mind.   

Do you disagree that Martin Smith's evidence would be admissible in a court of law as evidence against the McCanns ?

Admissible yes but without corroboration pretty benign.

There we have it then

... evidence against the McCanns that a court would be compelled to hear and consider

It's no myth

[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.

No prosecutor would even use Mr Smith as his evidence is frankly, absurd.

Of course they wouldn't.  No Prosecutor wants to be laughed out of Court.

The only purpose that The Smith Family fullfilled was they they saw someone carrying a child at approximately the right time.
I don't know if it was Madeleine, but the FACT that this persons has never come forward might suggest that it was.
Does anyone actually believe that an innocent bystander would have said nothing?

[AnneGuedes]

they saw someone carrying a child at approximately the right time.

What do you mean ? Not really the "right time" if linked to Jane T's sighting.

[Eleanor]

Grasping at straws comes to mind.   

Do you disagree that Martin Smith's evidence would be admissible in a court of law as evidence against the McCanns ?

Admissible yes but without corroboration pretty benign.

There we have it then

... evidence against the McCanns that a court would be compelled to hear and consider

It's no myth

Compelled?  You could be right about that.  And then compelled to hear what the rest of The Smith Family had to say.

The Smith Family, collectively, were of no use whatsoever in a Criminal Prosecution.

Do you seriously believe that the evidence of Martin Smith was of any use?

And, Dear God, I shudder to think of what The Defence would have done to Mrs. Smith, presuming that she could have been forced to give evidence.

[Eleanor]

they saw someone carrying a child at approximately the right time.

What do you mean ? Not really the "right time" if linked to Jane T's sighting.

Don't be silly, Silly.  I can think of half a dozen reasons for the time lapse, if I wished to speculate.  And for why The Abductor might have chosen the route.

Do you know anything at all about Logistics?  And Logistics isn't always to do with Lorry Driving.

[ferryman]

The Smith Family, collectively, were of no use whatsoever in a Criminal Prosecution.

Agreed!

But Aofe Smith (in particular) might have been more than useful as a defence witness ...

[AnneGuedes]

they saw someone carrying a child at approximately the right time.

What do you mean ? Not really the "right time" if linked to Jane T's sighting.

Don't be silly, Silly.  I can think of half a dozen reasons for the time lapse, if I wished to speculate.  And for why The Abductor might have chosen the route.

Do you know anything at all about Logistics?  And Logistics isn't always to do with Lorry Driving.

You're being rude, why ?
Will you tell us why the "abductor might have chosen the route" or will you find it conveniently speculative ?

[John]

Grasping at straws comes to mind.   

Do you disagree that Martin Smith's evidence would be admissible in a court of law as evidence against the McCanns ?

Admissible yes but without corroboration pretty benign.

There we have it then

... evidence against the McCanns that a court would be compelled to hear and consider

It's no myth

I agreed it was evidence but certainly isn't evidence against the McCann's.  Observing someone walking in a street with a child is a million miles away from proving it was Gerry McCann and especially when there are over a dozen witnesses who can attest to his presence elsewhere at the same time.

Personally I cannot understand why anyone would countenance the claim by Martin Smith as the poor man is so obvious wrong.  The man made a mistake...end off!

[ferryman]

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

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

That is based on the premise that Mr Smith feels now as he did then.

I'm pretty sure you can't take that as read ...