So what is the evidence for abduction?

[Mr Gray]

Why not ?

...............or is yet another of you trying to 'have your cake and eat it' ?

look at post 760 first...and then ask

[Brietta]

So in the same way I could claim that the absence of Madeline is evidence of aliens?

If there was some other circumstantial evidence to support that hypothesis you most certainly could.

[Brietta]

It is evidence of removal of your car by persons other than you. There are at least 5 reasons why an authorised body may legitimately remove your car that do not constitute theft.

Then by a process of elimination the correct answer could be ascertained.

[slartibartfast]

#I can quote what Grime says verbatim and that is what he says..

lets see what Grime says if he answers questions from this forum...I guarantee there will be huge disappointment

Evidence is more than just some legally restricted definition.  It is any information that points to a certain course of events. I shall look forward to your disappointment.

[Mr Moderator]

Given that this question has arisen previously I felt it appropriate to give it its own thread.

Davel is correct when he points out that evidence and proof are not the same thing and are often confused.  Basically anything which is connected to a potential crime is evidence. The same evidence can point to guilt or innocence depending on what other evidence is collected.

Madeleine's disappearance is evidence of something dreadful happening to her, nothing more and nothing less.

The dog alerts are evidence of something but what may never be known.  Mr Grime stated they were of no evidential value on their own, the key word being value. 

[Mr Gray]

It is evidence of removal of your car by persons other than you. There are at least 5 reasons why an authorised body may legitimately remove your car that do not constitute theft.

then it is evidence of a possible abduction

[Mr Gray]

Evidence is more than just some legally restricted definition.  It is any information that points to a certain course of events. I shall look forward to your disappointment.

not certain but possible

[Mr Gray]

Given that this question has arisen previously I felt it appropriate to give it its own thread.

Davel is correct when he points out that evidence and proof are not the same thing and are often confused.  Basically anything which is connected to a potential crime is evidence. The same evidence can point to guilt or innocence depending on what other evidence is collected.

Madeleine's disappearance is evidence of something dreadful happening to her, nothing more and nothing less.

The dog alerts are evidence of something but what may never be known.  Mr Grime stated they were of no evidential value on their own, the key word being value.

The key word is certainly value...with evidential being the adjective to describe value...so Grime effectively said the alerts, by themselves, had no value

[Angelo222]

then it is evidence of a possible abduction

...just as the dog alerts are evidence of a possible death in 5a.

[Angelo222]

The key word is certainly value...with evidential being the adjective to describe value...so Grime effectively said the alerts, by themselves, had no value

Yes, no value but they still are evidence.

[Lace]

There could have been evidence of abduction,   the abductor could have left something on Madeleine's bed,  the bed ding wasn't sent off for forensic investigation.    Even if the abductor had worn gloves,   there could have been fibres from clothes he/she was wearing.

I don't understand Amaral's logic,  he says almost straight away he suspected the McCann's yet 5a wasn't made a crime scene.

[Mr Gray]

It is evidence of removal of your car by persons other than you. There are at least 5 reasons why an authorised body may legitimately remove your car that do not constitute theft.

so the police confirm that your car has not been removed by any authorised body...all that is left is theft...the absence of the car then becomes evidence of theft

[Gildas]

Given that this question has arisen previously I felt it appropriate to give it its own thread.

Davel is correct when he points out that evidence and proof are not the same thing and are often confused.  Basically anything which is connected to a potential crime is evidence. The same evidence can point to guilt or innocence depending on what other evidence is collected.

Madeleine's disappearance is evidence of something dreadful happening to her, nothing more and nothing less.

The dog alerts are evidence of something but what may never be known.  Mr Grime stated they were of no evidential value on their own, the key word being value.

Mr Moderator,
You post that;

"The dog alerts are evidence of something but what may never be known.  Mr Grime stated they were of no evidential value on their own, the key word being value."

If the key word is "value", could you please, provide a link to where Mr Grimes stated that the alerts were of no evidential value on their own.

[stephen25000]

There could have been evidence of abduction,   the abductor could have left something on Madeleine's bed,  the bed ding wasn't sent off for forensic investigation.    Even if the abductor had worn gloves,   there could have been fibres from clothes he/she was wearing.

I don't understand Amaral's logic,  he says almost straight away he suspected the McCann's yet 5a wasn't made a crime scene.

Abductor ???

Not proven  I would say.

What do you think ?

[Lace]

Abductor ???

Not proven  I would say.

What do you think ?

I will wait until the investigation is over.