Was there ever any evidence of criminality against the McCanns?

[debunker]

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

You are mis-using English.

I have produced cites; you have produced none.

This is as bad as arguing with creationists- all bluster and no cites.

[Eleanor]

Ah écoutez-moi !

Only if you are talking to the non familiar.  Vous, as it were.

Thanks for the French lesson, Eleanor !

And of course, Vous is always collective.  It is not possible to talk to more than one person in the familiar.  I briefly thought that you might be familiar.  Silly me.
Although I cannot for the life of me remember when I said that.

Did you go looking for it just to mock me?  How bloody pathetic.  Was I actually talking to you?

This is what you all do.  No real argument, isn't it.

[Benice]

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?

Not only him, but if he was innocently carrying his child to somewhere from somewhere then there must be other people from those places who would also know it was an innocent sighting.   One might expect a mother to report that it was her son collecting his daughter from her home, or a wife saying that it was her husband picking up their child from her mother's who had been babysitting for them etc.     And yet nothing - not a word.  Apart from the similarities in their descriptions - the deafening silence resulting from both JT and the Smith's sighting strongly suggests that it was the same person.

[Eleanor]

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

You are mis-using English.

I have produced cites; you have produced none.

This is as bad as arguing with creationists- all bluster and no cites.

Debunker.  I love you half to death because I know who you are, and that you are a kind person.  And that you will give anyone the benefit of the doubt.  And often beyond that.  You also know that I have some similar thoughts and experience on any such subject because I have been involved on occasions with the dregs of society.  And felt at least some understanding.
But can you please explain to me for why you want to raise doubts about The McCanns, even semantically?
You have no more evidence than any of us have.  Or am I just thick?  Is there something about me that is too stupid to understand what you are saying.  Are you saying that there is nothing?  Or that there is something?

I really need to know, because I will travel nowhere until I do.

[Redblossom]

Benice, it is only your opinion that there is strong evidence that the two sightings were of the same man and child, the actual evidence says otherwise.

[debunker]

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

You are mis-using English.

I have produced cites; you have produced none.

This is as bad as arguing with creationists- all bluster and no cites.

Debunker.  I love you half to death because I know who you are, and that you are a kind person.  And that you will give anyone the benefit of the doubt.  And often beyond that.  You also know that I have some similar thoughts and experience on any such subject because I have been involved on occasions with the dregs of society.  And felt at least some understanding.
But can you please explain to me for why you want to raise doubts about The McCanns, even semantically?
You have no more evidence than any of us have.  Or am I just thick?  Is there something about me that is too stupid to understand what you are saying.  Are you saying that there is nothing?  Or that there is something?

I really need to know, because I will travel nowhere until I do.

Evidence is any INFORMATION, true or false, probative or not that could be referred to in deciding a case or making a scientific study.

IT is totally true that there is no PROBATIVE EVIDENCE against the McCanns.

Probative Evidence is a sub-set of all Evidence that could be given against the McCanns.

Saying that there is NO EVIDENCE is to misunderstand the nature of evidence and what it means in the real world.

For instance, there is good evidence that the world is flat- we see a straight horizon when we look out to sea and have no sense impression of living on a spherical world. That is evidence for a flat earth- it is information that could be adduced to prove that the earth is flat. It happens to be untrue and therefore is neither acceptable in scientific argument, nor in any way probative.

All the dictionaries and law texts agree that Evidence is truth-value free- merely information.

[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?

Not only him, but if he was innocently carrying his child to somewhere from somewhere then there must be other people from those places who would also know it was an innocent sighting.   One might expect a mother to report that it was her son collecting his daughter from her home, or a wife saying that it was her husband picking up their child from her mother's who had been babysitting for them etc.     And yet nothing - not a word.  Apart from the similarities in their descriptions - the deafening silence resulting from both JT and the Smith's sighting strongly suggests that it was the same person.

Oh my goodness.  I hadn't even thought about that.  Not even the mother of the child came forward.  Or anyone else.  And it was never a singular thing. Someone else must have known.

Shit, I lose the words on occasions.  But The Smith Family saw a man carrying a  child.

Actually, I can't say that it wasn't Gerry McCann, but there is a bit more to it.  Where did he go and then what did he do when he was back at The Ranch when Kate raised the alarm some ten minutes later?  Some ten minutes after he was supposedly seen.

Always Logistics.  Mathematics.  Not possible.

And do you know what?  I don't really care anymore.

[Redblossom]

Did  the PJ issue a call for anyone to come forward if they were the people seen at the time? By Tanner and the Smiths?

[Eleanor]

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

You are mis-using English.

I have produced cites; you have produced none.

This is as bad as arguing with creationists- all bluster and no cites.

Debunker.  I love you half to death because I know who you are, and that you are a kind person.  And that you will give anyone the benefit of the doubt.  And often beyond that.  You also know that I have some similar thoughts and experience on any such subject because I have been involved on occasions with the dregs of society.  And felt at least some understanding.
But can you please explain to me for why you want to raise doubts about The McCanns, even semantically?
You have no more evidence than any of us have.  Or am I just thick?  Is there something about me that is too stupid to understand what you are saying.  Are you saying that there is nothing?  Or that there is something?

I really need to know, because I will travel nowhere until I do.

Evidence is any INFORMATION, true or false, probative or not that could be referred to in deciding a case or making a scientific study.

IT is totally true that there is no PROBATIVE EVIDENCE against the McCanns.

Probative Evidence is a sub-set of all Evidence that could be given against the McCanns.

Saying that there is NO EVIDENCE is to misunderstand the nature of evidence and what it means in the real world.

For instance, there is good evidence that the world is flat- we see a straight horizon when we look out to sea and have no sense impression of living on a spherical world. That is evidence for a flat earth- it is information that could be adduced to prove that the earth is flat. It happens to be untrue and therefore is neither acceptable in scientific argument, nor in any way probative.

All the dictionaries and law texts agree that Evidence is truth-value free- merely information.

Gosh.  I don't see a straight horizon.  I see a spherical thing.  It encompasses me.  It goes around me.  It is on all sides of me.  But you only get the true sense if you are at sea.

Do you actually know what the Hoi Poloi see?  Has it never crossed your mind that some of them aren't quite so stupid?

Sadly, they only see all things that are bad, which has actually got nothing to do with a flat earth..  Only to do with their conception.

[Eleanor]

Did  the PJ issue a call for anyone to come forward if they were the people seen at the time? By Tanner and the Smiths?

Probably not.  But you might ask for why not.  No one actually knew anything about the Smith's sighting until many months later.  And too bloody late by then.  Not that it would have made any difference.
One can only ask for why Goncalo Amaral suddenly decided that it was important some months later.

Actually, as things go, it probably was.  But you see, far too many people were allowed to leave Praia da Luz, and were never questioned until it was far too late

[DCI]

I don't know why people are of the view that the person Jane Tanner alledgedly saw at 9.15 or so is the same person the Smith group saw at 10.00 or so. The descriptions of him are not identical, they differ in a couple of respects, in appearance, hair and face,  and in where they were going. Not to mention one of the Smiths said the child had a long sleeved pyjama top on and trousers and Kate says Madeleine was wearing short sleeved pyjama top that night and that Jane had seen bare arms, not that I read that anywhere in Jane Tanners statements, was that a Kate porkie? and the bottoms were shorts.

These pyjamas were what Amaral purchased, as being the same as Madeleine wore.

http://www.mccannfiles.com/id30.html

[Benice]

Benice, it is only your opinion that there is strong evidence that the two sightings were of the same man and child, the actual evidence says otherwise.

What evidence would that be please?

IMO there are far too many similarities in the descriptions for it to be put down to  coincidence - particularly the observations from both JT and the Smiths that the man did not look like a tourist, the child had bare feet and was wearing light coloured trousers possibly pajamas, and was not covered by a blanket even though the night was chilly.

I'm no mathematician, but surely the odds of it being two different men  - both being around the same age, height, build, colouring, and wearing similar clothing of similar hue,  both carrying a child, uncovered, with bare feet and wearing light coloured trousers, both in the same area, on the same night within the same hour, and both deciding not to come forward must be absolutely phenomenal?

[gilet]

I have just wasted a whole thirty minutes of my life.

I have read the entire thread looking for evidence of criminality against the McCanns.

Unfortunately, though there have been lots of dictionary definitions etc. there has been no evidence of criminality posted.

Just two comments from me.

1.  Some people claim the dog alerts are evidence of criminality. They are not. They have no evidential reliability.

2.  A philosophical discussion about the nature of evidence (which it appears to me what debunker is attempting to force here)is a completely different matter to dealing with the nature of evidence of criminality. There are many kinds of evidence and it is sheer folly to think that all have application in legal matters. Criminality is decided on evidence which has to be significantly more conclusive (to a standard of probability beyond reasonable doubt) than pure philosophical evidence. Bayesian evidence such as the fact that the majority of Portuguese people are more likely to have been involved in whatever happened to Madeleine McCann than the majority of English people because they were nearer to the event is evidence in only a philosophical framework, not a legal one. Neither does evidence based on satisfaction theory equate with evidence of criminality. Its not evidence of criminality on the part of the McCanns, for example, that a muddled time line exists and such muddled timelines have been found in previous situations where guilt has been proven.  Philosophers would make very, very poor judges.

[Eleanor]

Benice, it is only your opinion that there is strong evidence that the two sightings were of the same man and child, the actual evidence says otherwise.

What evidence would that be please?

IMO there are far too many similarities in the descriptions for it to be put down to  coincidence - particularly the observations from both JT and the Smiths that the man did not look like a tourist, the child had bare feet and was wearing light coloured trousers possibly pajamas, and was not covered by a blanket even though the night was chilly.

I'm no mathematician, but surely the odds of it being two different men  - both being around the same age, height, build, colouring, and wearing similar clothing of similar hue,  both carrying a child, uncovered, with bare feet and wearing light coloured trousers, both in the same area, on the same night within the same hour, and both deciding not to come forward must be absolutely phenomenal?

I am a Mathematician, And with some sense of Logistics.  And as it happens, there is a miniscule possibility of The McCanns having been involved in the disappearance of their daughter.  But it is so miniscule as not to be worth the time of anyone's day, and certainly not in the disposing of her body afterwards, never to be found, twice.  It is as simple as that.  No one could be that clever.
Or Could they be?

[AnneGuedes]

Philosophers would make very, very poor judges.

Who is judging here ?