Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?

[stephen25000]

OK that's fair enough but in this case did anyone witness Maddie being abducted?   As far as I recall, nobody has ever claimed to have seen Madeleine being abducted so how do you square that fact?

....and that Angelo is precisely the point.

People standing in a street or on a street corner, are not evidence of abduction, and neither is a person carrying a child.

You need something more substantial than that.

[Mr Gray]

Which threads? If you can't provide a link or make some effort at providing evidence to support your beliefs you can't blame people if they begin see your posts as  irrelevant my opinion.

so what ... I find most of your posts irrelevant...what is relevant is SY seem to share my views...you have failed to give a definition of evidence you find acceptable...witness statements are evidence and plenty support abduction

[stephen25000]

so what ... I find most of your posts irrelevant...what is relevant is SY seem to share my views...you have failed to give a definition of evidence you find acceptable...witness statements are evidence and plenty support abduction

No they don't.

[Mr Gray]

....and that Angelo is precisely the point.

People standing in a street or on a street corner, are not evidence of abduction, and neither is a person carrying a child.

You need something more substantial than that.

Angelo has conceded that witness statements are evidence...

[stephen25000]

Angelo has conceded that witness statements are evidence...

Witnesses who saw an 'abduction'.

READ AGAIN.

[Mr Gray]

Witnesses who saw an 'abduction'.

READ AGAIN.

Angelo posted ..OK that's fair enough ....in response to my claim that witness statenets are evidence. You cannot seem to understand basic English....witness statements are evidence..that is a fact

[Brietta]

 If you are so adamant there is no evidence of abduction ... what evidence is there to support whatever your pet theory may be?
It isn't enough to blame what you suppose are Madeleine McCann's parents' parenting skills.

I think a hint to the current situation may be that SY are not 'grilling' the Drs McCann or any of their party; they are sitting in while the PJ 'grill' arguidos.

It should be remembered that in the days after the Drs McCann were made arguidos, there was a change in Portuguese law that doing such required the production of evidence.  Therefore, the people who were questioned as arguidos have evidence of some kind levelled against them.  As we know that was not the case with Madeleine's parents then, nor is it the present case.

I posted a cite yesterday of DCI Redwood saying there were new witnesses and new evidence being being considered.

[stephen25000]

If you are so adamant there is no evidence of abduction ... what evidence is there to support whatever your pet theory may be?
It isn't enough to blame what you suppose are Madeleine McCann's parents' parenting skills.

I think a hint to the current situation may be that SY are not 'grilling' the Drs McCann or any of their party; they are sitting in while the PJ 'grill' arguidos.

It should be remembered that in the days after the Drs McCann were made arguidos, there was a change in Portuguese law that doing such required the production of evidence.  Therefore, the people who were questioned as arguidos have evidence of some kind levelled against them.  As we know that was not the case with Madeleine's parents then, nor is it the present case.

I posted a cite yesterday of DCI Redwood saying there were new witnesses and new evidence being being considered.

I judge by results.

Redwood's statements are bland and meaningless.

he isn't even in charge of the case.

SY have come up with a big fat ZERO.

[Brietta]

I judge by results.

Redwood's statements are bland and meaningless.

he isn't even in charge of the case.

SY have come up with a big fat ZERO.

Much as you would like it to be ... the case is not over.

You know what they say about the fat lady ?? for all you know she may be singing arias.

[Montclair]

No they didn't.

Witness Statement

Gerald Patrick McCann

Date: 2007/05/04

Time 11.15

Kate Marie Healy's statement 04/05/07 @ 14.20pm

I should have specified that Kate was never interviewed without the presence of her husband until September 2007. 

[G-Unit]

If you are so adamant there is no evidence of abduction ... what evidence is there to support whatever your pet theory may be?
It isn't enough to blame what you suppose are Madeleine McCann's parents' parenting skills.

I think a hint to the current situation may be that SY are not 'grilling' the Drs McCann or any of their party; they are sitting in while the PJ 'grill' arguidos.

It should be remembered that in the days after the Drs McCann were made arguidos, there was a change in Portuguese law that doing such required the production of evidence.  Therefore, the people who were questioned as arguidos have evidence of some kind levelled against them.  As we know that was not the case with Madeleine's parents then, nor is it the present case.

I posted a cite yesterday of DCI Redwood saying there were new witnesses and new evidence being being considered.

Are you trying to change the subject? Davel says there is evidence which supports the abduction theory. He/she is clearly unwilling or unable to produce that evidence, so it's perfectly reasonable for people to conclude there is none.

[G-Unit]

Just so we all know what we're discussing;

Types of evidence

There are a number of different types of evidence:

Testimony - the oral statement of a witness made on oath in open court and put forward as evidence of the truth of what he or she says.
Real evidence - this is usually a material object of some kind, which is produced for inspection, either to prove that it exists, or so that the court can make an inference as to its condition or value, for example ripped clothing, a knife or burnt document.
Hearsay evidence - when a witness, or someone else, makes a statement other than in the course of their testimony, this is referred to as an ‘out of court statement.’ Hearsay evidence is an out of court statement which is being relied upon to prove the truth of its contents.
Original evidence - this is an out of court statement offered for a relevant purpose other than proving the truth of its contents, for example to prove something was said at all.
Documentary evidence - this consists of documents which have been produced for inspection by the court. These may be items of real evidence, original evidence or hearsay.
http://www.inbrief.co.uk/court-proceedings/evidence.htm

[Brietta]

Are you trying to change the subject? Davel says there is evidence which supports the abduction theory. He/she is clearly unwilling or unable to produce that evidence, so it's perfectly reasonable for people to conclude there is none.

Change the subject to what?

You demand evidence of abduction ... but object to discussing evidence to support the other theories which must be supported if in denial that Madeleine McCann was abducted ... yet again single minded duplicity??

[Brietta]

Just so we all know what we're discussing;

Types of evidence

There are a number of different types of evidence:

Testimony - the oral statement of a witness made on oath in open court and put forward as evidence of the truth of what he or she says.
Real evidence - this is usually a material object of some kind, which is produced for inspection, either to prove that it exists, or so that the court can make an inference as to its condition or value, for example ripped clothing, a knife or burnt document.
Hearsay evidence - when a witness, or someone else, makes a statement other than in the course of their testimony, this is referred to as an ‘out of court statement.’ Hearsay evidence is an out of court statement which is being relied upon to prove the truth of its contents.
Original evidence - this is an out of court statement offered for a relevant purpose other than proving the truth of its contents, for example to prove something was said at all.
Documentary evidence - this consists of documents which have been produced for inspection by the court. These may be items of real evidence, original evidence or hearsay.
http://www.inbrief.co.uk/court-proceedings/evidence.htm

I think we are well aware what evidence for and against an assertion is.

Time for you to show us yours.

[stephen25000]

I think we are well aware what evidence for and against an assertion is.

Time for you to show us yours.

Nothing for abduction.

and without that, all roads lead back to the mccanns.