So what is the evidence for abduction?

[slartibartfast]

Nothing is proved until the case reaches court...first the evidence is collected...you are quite wrong and les is right...madeleine missing IS evidence of abduction...just one small piece...however just because you have evidence of something...doesn't make it true....it gets a little boring but you confuse eveidence and proof

I suppose if she were still around it would be proof she wasn't abducted. True but stupid.

[jassi]

I suppose that would depend on where she was found and who she was with.

[ferryman]

Nothing is proved until the case reaches court...first the evidence is collected...you are quite wrong and les is right...madeleine missing IS evidence of abduction...just one small piece...however just because you have evidence of something...doesn't make it true....it gets a little boring but you confuse eveidence and proof

The Smith sighting is evidence of abduction, strengthened by the fact that Martin has changed his mind about the man being Gerry.

Absence of evidence that Kate and Gerry were simultaneously absent from the restaurant at any point on May 3rd is evidence of abduction (it precludes the necessary collusion for a plot of the type postulated by Amaral).

The McCanns' normal and relaxed behaviour on May 3rd (up to the point of Kate's alert) is evidence of abduction.
 
People who actually know how to read body-language say the McCanns' body-language on May 3rd (and following) say the McCanns' spell innocent!

That is evidence of abduction ...

[Mr Gray]

Sorry I have been busy at my proper work of leading peasants astray in the woods and hiding axes from the woodcutters.
Madeleine McCann being missing may, under the strictest definition of the word, be considered evidence of her abduction. Her being missing could also be evidence of her having been murdered, gone on a shopping trip or being taken by a Leshy.
If you are familiar with pretty basic mathematics you will understand that this piece of evidence on its own is about as useful as having the axes (not the ones I have been hiding from the woodcutters) and a single point of a graph.
So this piece of evidence available for her abduction is particularly weak. What other evidence of abduction is is there?


I fear we are running into the realms of lexicography which whilst interesting could be construed as hair splitting in this context.

I agree with what you say apart from the hairsplitting. To say that there is no evidence of abduction is untrue.

As this is only fairly weak evidence of abduction then we look at what other evidence we have...to support this evidence or not

[Mr Gray]

Indeed.
Then applying the normal contracting convention of last document in the heap rules the last official document from the authority with primacy stated there was no evidence of what if any crime had been committed. Had there been we would not be having this discussion now.
The latest investigations may turn up something.

but there is evidence to support a crime...so IF the document says that then it is wrong or the translation is wrong...there is more than enough evidence to support the fact that a crime has been committed although not proof

[John]

The Smith sighting is evidence of abduction, strengthened by the fact that Martin has changed his mind about the man being Gerry.

Absence of evidence that Kate and Gerry were simultaneously absent from the restaurant at any point on May 3rd is evidence of abduction (it precludes the necessary collusion for a plot of the type postulated by Amaral).

The McCanns' normal and relaxed behaviour on May 3rd (up to the point of Kate's alert) is evidence of abduction.
 
People who actually know how to read body-language say the McCanns' body-language on May 3rd (and following) say the McCanns' spell innocent!

That is evidence of abduction ...

The same evidence can support many theories but unless corroborated it remains neutral and consequently incapable of providing support to one side or the other.

To take your example above, you state that, "The Smith sighting is evidence of abduction, strengthened by the fact that Martin has changed his mind about the man being Gerry."

The Smith sighting can evidence two things, namely, an innocent man carrying a child or an abductor carrying a child.  The non identification of Gerry is irrelevant.

[patb]

with hindsight, a better title for the thread would have been "what admissible evidence are we aware of that specifically shows an abduction (to the exclusion of other theories)". So for example, the fact she is missing or a witness saw a man carrying a child are not answers to this question as they are not specific and do not exclude other theories. IMHO, that is a more exact question and avoids some of the fuzziness we have seen in this thread. Anyone want to have a go at that question?

[Mr Gray]

with hindsight, a better title for the thread would have been "what admissible evidence are we aware of that specifically shows an abduction (to the exclusion of other theories)". So for example, the fact she is missing or a witness saw a man carrying a child are not answers to this question as they are not specific and do not exclude other theories. IMHO, that is a more exact question and avoids some of the fuzziness we have seen in this thread. Anyone want to have a go at that question?

The whole point of the thread is to show that there is evidence for abduction..its quite an important point to make for several reasons...the only fuzziness is because posters don't realise what "evidence" means

[pathfinder73]

The whole point of the thread is to show that there is evidence for abduction..its quite an important point to make for several reasons...the only fuzziness is because posters don't realise what "evidence" means

I could say the window was open and the child had disappeared. That doesn't mean she was abducted but she had disappeared. Homicide are investigating The Disappearance of Madeleine McCann.

[Mr Gray]

I could say the window was open and the child had disappeared. That doesn't mean she was abducted but she had disappeared. Homicide are investigating The Disappearance of Madeleine McCann.

evidence of abduction does not necessarily prove abduction...sy are treating the case as an abduction at the moment

[pathfinder73]

evidence of abduction does not necessarily prove abduction...sy are treating the case as an abduction at the moment

Abduction is a possibility so is the child leaving on her own accord and so is staging.

[Wonderfulspam]

Abduction is a possibility so is the child leaving on her own accord and so is staging.

Not according to Kate & Gerry it ain't.

'you know, she was tucked up in bed, errm... and there's no way she... she could have got out on her own.'
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Rw4S5o2KPY&feature=player_embedded

I wonder how they could be so certain that 'There's no way she could have got out on her own'

Was she unable to move.

[pathfinder73]

Not according to Kate & Gerry it ain't.

I wonder how they could be so certain that 'There's no way she could have got out on her own'

Was she unable to move.

And with Smithman carrying her away then I can rule that one out. That leaves two possibilities Abduction or Staging.

[jassi]

Not according to Kate & Gerry it ain't.

I wonder how they could be so certain that 'There's no way she could have got out on her own'

Was she unable to move.

If all the doors were locked ( as was first said), then perhaps there would be no way for her to get out

[Wonderfulspam]

'you know, she was tucked up in bed, errm... and there's no way she... she could have got out on her own.'

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Rw4S5o2KPY&feature=player_embedded



'The shutter was up & the window was open,  I'm not lying about that.....'

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WLvnfcl-Zkg&feature=youtube_gdata_player