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

[jassi]

I'm not one into mystic sightings or beliefs. So please tell us all who saw Madeleine being 'abducted'.

I await a  logical response.

Not bluster.

The Smith family, maybe ?

[stephen25000]

another stupid question einstein

Hardly.

However, a typical davel ignorant response.

As per normal.

You know damn well there's no evidence of abduction worth a grain of sand

[stephen25000]

The Smith family, maybe ?

Being carried in a certain way. %£&)**# %£&)**# %£&)**#

[Mr Gray]

Hardly.

However, a typical davel ignorant response.

As per normal.

You know damn well there's no evidence of abduction worth a grain of sand

First...unless you have forgotten everything that has been reported for the last seven years you would know that no one saw maddie being abducted...just as no one saw Ben Needham or the little Australian boy being abducted...that makes your question stupid on the first count...

Secondly I have posted today there is no hard evidence of abduction...that makes your question stupid on the second count.

However....you will agree that you do not need hard evidence to prove something....it's like the grains of sand you mention...one grain of sand is worthless but if you have enough you can make a very nice beach

[stephen25000]

First...unless you have forgotten everything that has been reported for the last seven years you would know that no one saw maddie being abducted...just as no one saw Ben Needham or the little Australian boy being abducted...that makes your question stupid on the first count...

Secondly I have posted today there is no hard evidence of abduction...that makes your question stupid on the second count.

However....you will agree that you do not need hard evidence to prove something....it's like the grains of sand you mention...one grain of sand is worthless but if you have enough you can make a very nice beach

So the bottom line remains, nothing in the way of hard evidence.

So believe away..........................

It isn't going to change a thing.

[Mr Gray]

So the bottom line remains, nothing in the way of hard evidence.

So believe away..........................

It isn't going to change a thing.

not surprisingly you failed to understand the point that other posters understood.......you don't need hard evidence to prove a case

[Lace]

not surprisingly you failed to understand the point that other posters understood.......you don't need hard evidence to prove a case

SY have said there was a 'window of opportunity'  that was enough for them.

So,  why did Amaral follow up the sightings Stephen?

[stephen25000]

not surprisingly you failed to understand the point that other posters understood.......you don't need hard evidence to prove a case

I understand perfectly dave.

There is no evidence of abduction worth anything.

If you wish to maintain some fantasy there is, that's your problem, not mine.

SY are at ground zero and have miserably to find any trace of Madeleine.

[stephen25000]

SY have said there was a 'window of opportunity'  that was enough for them.

So,  why did Amaral follow up the sightings Stephen?

Maybe at the start he believed in the possibility of abduction.

However, there wasn't and that still remains the case.

I do wonder at people who believe in something there is no evidence for. &%+((£

[Mr Gray]

A little lesson for Stephen re the relevance of circumstantial evidence...

Validity of circumstantial evidence

A popular misconception is that circumstantial evidence is less valid or less important than direct evidence.[2][citation needed] This is only partly true: direct evidence is popularly, but mistakenly, considered more powerful. Many successful criminal prosecutions rely largely or entirely on circumstantial evidence, and civil charges are frequently based on circumstantial or indirect evidence. Much of the evidence against convicted American bomber Timothy McVeigh was circumstantial, for example. Speaking about McVeigh's trial, University of Michigan law professor Robert Precht said, "Circumstantial evidence can be, and often is much more powerful than direct evidence." [3] The 2004 murder trial of Scott Peterson was another high-profile conviction based heavily on circumstantial evidence.

[stephen25000]

A little lesson for Stephen re the relevance of circumstantial evidence...

Validity of circumstantial evidence


A 'belief' in abduction does not make it true.

A popular misconception is that circumstantial evidence is less valid or less important than direct evidence.[2][citation needed] This is only partly true: direct evidence is popularly, but mistakenly, considered more powerful. Many successful criminal prosecutions rely largely or entirely on circumstantial evidence, and civil charges are frequently based on circumstantial or indirect evidence. Much of the evidence against convicted American bomber Timothy McVeigh was circumstantial, for example. Speaking about McVeigh's trial, University of Michigan law professor Robert Precht said, "Circumstantial evidence can be, and often is much more powerful than direct evidence." [3] The 2004 murder trial of Scott Peterson was another high-profile conviction based heavily on circumstantial evidence.

I don't need any lessons from you dave.

You cannot get away from the bottom line.

SY have not found anything to indicate Madeleine's fate or how she disappeared from the apartment.

CAUSE UNKNOWN remains the status of the case.

[Mr Gray]

Well, I tried. Your sole purpose it seems to me is to ridicule any evidence offered by others while refusing to provide anything to support your position.

Once again I am off topic, and once again it is due to trying to get some sense out of a 'believer'.

you only have to look at stephens posts on here to see why I cannot be bothered to enter into any serious debate

[stephen25000]

you only have to look at stephens posts on here to see why I cannot be bothered to enter into any serious debate

The only reason you post on here is to defend the mccanns.

Anything else is of secondary importance.

[G-Unit]

Stephen a question for you.    Why did Amaral follow up sightings?

Because, contrary to what some say, he did not just follow one line of inquiry.

In the inquiry it is clear that the PJ never dismissed any information or credible elements that might lead to the revelation of facts, with over 2000 formal and informal diligences carried out over the months, and the PJ having explored, nationally and internationally, all of the information with a higher or lower degree of credibility, with special relevance for tens of supposed sightings or trackings of the child, most of which were widely reported by the press.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/LEGAL_SUMMARY.htm

[pathfinder73]

A little lesson for Stephen re the relevance of circumstantial evidence...

Validity of circumstantial evidence

A popular misconception is that circumstantial evidence is less valid or less important than direct evidence.[2][citation needed] This is only partly true: direct evidence is popularly, but mistakenly, considered more powerful. Many successful criminal prosecutions rely largely or entirely on circumstantial evidence, and civil charges are frequently based on circumstantial or indirect evidence. Much of the evidence against convicted American bomber Timothy McVeigh was circumstantial, for example. Speaking about McVeigh's trial, University of Michigan law professor Robert Precht said, "Circumstantial evidence can be, and often is much more powerful than direct evidence." [3] The 2004 murder trial of Scott Peterson was another high-profile conviction based heavily on circumstantial evidence.

Circumstantial evidence is evidence that relies on an inference to connect it to a conclusion of fact—like a fingerprint at the scene of a crime. On its own, circumstantial evidence allows for more than one explanation. Different pieces of circumstantial evidence may be required, so that each corroborates the conclusions drawn from the others.

There's circumstantial evidence in this case. Finding evidence of Madeleine and connecting it to mobile phone evidence may be the hard evidence required in this case. When are new forensics happening?