So what is the evidence for abduction?

[Brietta]

The dogs are evidence.

You are getting "evidence" confused with "proof".

EVIDENCE
: something which shows that something else exists or is true
: a visible sign of something
: material that is presented to a court of law to help find the truth about something
:  an outward sign
:  indication
:  something that furnishes proof

PROOF
Is that which validates the evidence.

I suggest I am not the one who is confused.

[John]

They haven't started yet - probably analysing data from the air photographs - but good question - why indeed?

Easy...they are waiting on the experts to arrive.

[Mr Gray]

If there is nothing to indicate a cadaver why are the police digging up PDL   ?

The dogs alerted in 2007...the digging is due to take place seven years later...its ridiculous to suggest the two events are connected

[ferryman]

The dogs are evidence.

You are getting "evidence" confused with "proof".

The dogs' alerts are intelligence

They are not admissible in court.

[stephen25000]

The dogs' alerts are intelligence

They are not admissible in court.

The dogs alerts remain the only indications so far in this case.

There are none for abduction.

[Mr Gray]

The dogs alerts remain the only indications so far in this case.

There are none for abduction.

there is evidence of abduction...that's what this thread has shown

[patb]

It may be more useful to divide what is known into "intel", "evidence" and a sub group within that cattagory : "admissible evidence", just using the word evidence leads to much confusion as can be seen by this thread. To suggest that the fact that she is missing is evidence of an abduction I am afraid is way off the mark. You could say the same thing about being taken away my aliens. All of these catagories have to have the prefix of "known to us" as obviously we have only seen a fraction of what the police have access to. Broadly speaking - evidence proves a fact. Enough pieces of evidence prove enough facts to turn a theory into what actually happened. Admissibility is obviously  crucial as there is little point in gaining evidence that cannot be used in court. Spain and the UK have different legal systems so we have the potential for 2 different sub groups with the "admissible evidence group". Intel is information that points you towards a possible source of evidence.  (the dogs provide intel only, for example  you are never going to convict someone for carrying a bomb purely because a dog has identified you. It is the intel provided by the dog that enables the police to search the bomber and find the evidence - namely the bomb)

[Mr Gray]

It may be more useful to divide what is known into "intel", "evidence" and a sub group within that cattagory : "admissible evidence", just using the word evidence leads to much confusion as can be seen by this thread. To suggest that the fact that she is missing is evidence of an abduction I am afraid is way off the mark. You could say the same thing about being taken away my aliens. All of these catagories have to have the prefix of "known to us" as obviously we have only seen a fraction of what the police have access to. Broadly speaking - evidence proves a fact. Enough pieces of evidence prove enough facts to turn a theory into what actually happened. Admissibility is obviously  crucial as there is little point in gaining evidence that cannot be used in court. Spain and the UK have different legal systems so we have the potential for 2 different sub groups with the "admissible evidence group". Intel is information that points you towards a possible source of evidence.  (the dogs provide intel only, for example  you are never going to convict someone for carrying a bomb purely because a dog has identified you. It is the intel provided by the dog that enables the police to search the bomber and find the evidence - namely the bomb)

who are you to say I'm way off the mark..you are way off the mark with a poor understanding of what evidence is....evidence does not prove a fact necessarily........there was enough evidence to take colin stagg to court and he was innocent.....

absence is evidence of abduction...we need more evidence to make a stronger case and this no doubt is what SY
have done

[Brietta]

It may be more useful to divide what is known into "intel", "evidence" and a sub group within that cattagory : "admissible evidence", just using the word evidence leads to much confusion as can be seen by this thread. To suggest that the fact that she is missing is evidence of an abduction I am afraid is way off the mark. You could say the same thing about being taken away my aliens. All of these catagories have to have the prefix of "known to us" as obviously we have only seen a fraction of what the police have access to. Broadly speaking - evidence proves a fact. Enough pieces of evidence prove enough facts to turn a theory into what actually happened. Admissibility is obviously  crucial as there is little point in gaining evidence that cannot be used in court. Spain and the UK have different legal systems so we have the potential for 2 different sub groups with the "admissible evidence group". Intel is information that points you towards a possible source of evidence.  (the dogs provide intel only, for example  you are never going to convict someone for carrying a bomb purely because a dog has identified you. It is the intel provided by the dog that enables the police to search the bomber and find the evidence - namely the bomb)

Sounds like a reasonable post.
Am I right in thinking you are saying that instead of Madeleine's absence being 'evidence' or 'proof' of abduction, we should be saying Madeleine's absence is intel which 'points towards abduction'?

[patb]

OK, let me try again to explain as the thread and the forum is going to go in all directions if we cant agree what evidence is. Firstly, if evidence does not prove a fact, then I am at a loss to know what exactly it is (that which tends to prove or disprove something; ground for belief; proof. - first dictionary definition I found on the web) To give another example of the misuse of proof, I once challenged a "bible basher" on my doorstep to give me any proof that god existed. She bent down and picked a daisy from my lawn and gave it to me. In her eyes, the very existence of the daisy was proof of God. She had ignored the issue of causation which is pretty essential. I don't think anyone questions the fact that she has disappeared in the same way that I could not argue the fact that the daisy existed. I don't think that the police as struggling to prove that, it's taken for granted by everyone. The theory of abduction is the theory concerning why she has disappeared. So proof of abduction needs to prove the how and the why of her disappearance. In the same way that the lady on my doorstep needs to prove the origin of the daisy and not that existence of the daisy.

[Mr Gray]

OK, let me try again to explain as the thread and the forum is going to go in all directions if we cant agree what evidence is. Firstly, if evidence does not prove a fact, then I am at a loss to know what exactly it is (that which tends to prove or disprove something; ground for belief; proof. - first dictionary definition I found on the web) To give another example of the misuse of proof, I once challenged a "bible basher" on my doorstep to give me any proof that god existed. She bent down and picked a daisy from my lawn and gave it to me. In her eyes, the very existence of the daisy was proof of God. She had ignored the issue of causation which is pretty essential. I don't think anyone questions the fact that she has disappeared in the same way that I could not argue the fact that the daisy existed. I don't think that the police as struggling to prove that, it's taken for granted by everyone. The theory of abduction is the theory concerning why she has disappeared. So proof of abduction needs to prove the how and the why of her disappearance. In the same way that the lady on my doorstep needs to prove the origin of the daisy and not that existence of the daisy.

you have found a definition which describes evidence as proof...so that's wrong for a start....you then continue the post talking about proof.

one piece of evidence may prove nothing..agreed...

several pieces of evidence together my prove something..again they may not



evidence and proof are not the same

[patb]

I give up..anyone else want to try?

[Victoria]

I give up..anyone else want to try?

Kid is missing, parents have an alibi. Looks like abduction to me.

[Mr Gray]

Kid is missing, parents have an alibi. Looks like abduction to me.

SY will have looked at all the evidence and they are treating the case as a stranger abduction

[Brietta]

I give up..anyone else want to try?

No ... I am finding this interesting ... and I am in agreement with both you and Davel.   ????????