"We must reconstruct Maddie’s fateful night" says former Portuguese police chief.

[Alice Purjorick]

 http://uk.practicallaw.com/2-500-6576?service=ld
"The balance of probability standard means that a court is satisfied an event occurred if the court considers that, on the evidence, the occurrence of the event was more likely than not. When assessing the probabilities the court will have in mind as a factor, to whatever extent is appropriate in the particular case, that the more serious the allegation the less likely it is that the event occurred and, hence, the stronger should be the evidence before the court concludes that the allegation is established on the balance of probability"

[Mr Gray]

http://uk.practicallaw.com/2-500-6576?service=ld
"The balance of probability standard means that a court is satisfied an event occurred if the court considers that, on the evidence, the occurrence of the event was more likely than not. When assessing the probabilities the court will have in mind as a factor, to whatever extent is appropriate in the particular case, that the more serious the allegation the less likely it is that the event occurred and, hence, the stronger should be the evidence before the court concludes that the allegation is established on the balance of probability"

not a statisitic in sight...thank you

[G-Unit]

Read your own signature

How can anyone draw conclusions from a timeline that's impossible to verify? That was a very silly statement to be made by a police officer who must be aware that agreed accounts are at least suspect and at worst worthless as evidence.

[Mr Gray]

How can anyone draw conclusions from a timeline that's impossible to verify? That was a very silly statement to be made by a police officer who must be aware that agreed accounts are at least suspect and at worst worthless as evidence.

TG
hat is not what SY think

[stephen25000]

TG
hat is not what SY think

So which members of SY would that be ?

[Mr Gray]

So which members of SY would that be ?

an official statement...do you have any evidence that  members of SY disagree...cite

[Alice Purjorick]

not a statisitic in sight...thank you

It hardly backs up your assertion that abduction is proven on the basis of the legal definition of balance of probability.
I would commend you and all posters to reading the entire article.
Then we can all see that your assertion is unsustainable on the grounds you claim.

[Mr Gray]

It hardly backs up your assertion that abduction is proven on the basis of the legal definition of balance of probability.
I would commend you and all posters to reading the entire article.
Then we can all see that your assertion is unsustainable on the grounds you claim.

it does but as you are one of the more raving sceptics I would hardly expect you to agree

[Mr Gray]

It hardly backs up your assertion that abduction is proven on the basis of the legal definition of balance of probability.
I would commend you and all posters to reading the entire article.
Then we can all see that your assertion is unsustainable on the grounds you claim.

#as I have stated many times..if the parents are not suspects then abduction is easily proved on the balance of probabilities

[pegasus]

If you believe the witnessses to be honest, then you are proposng a post 10pm removal? By who?

There was no confirmed sighting of the missing person leaving the property, and there was no complete search of the property. So it's an obvious deduction Merc.

[mercury]

There was no confirmed sighting of the missing person leaving the property, and there was no complete search of the property. So it's an obvious deduction Merc.

Ok,well, must put thnking cap on, though probably it wont work as Ive been stumped by this scenario of yours for months

 &%+((£

[Alice Purjorick]

#as I have stated many times..if the parents are not suspects then abduction is easily proved on the balance of probabilities

We realise what you persistently assert usually with the qualifier if in it.
Thus far there is no evidence we are aware of to rule anyone in or rule anyone out.
On that basis the legal balance of probability will lie with whichever of three alternatives is the most likely (see article previously linked).

[Mr Gray]

We realise what you persistently assert usually with the qualifier if in it.
Thus far there is no evidence we are aware of to rule anyone in or rule anyone out.
On that basis the legal balance of probability will lie with whichever of three alternatives is the most likely (see article previously linked).

but there is evidence that the parents are not suspects....perhaps you should now post the definition of evidence

[mercury]

but there is evidence that the parents are not suspects....perhaps you should now post the definition of evidence

No, there is not. There is one statement from 3 years ago given in a specific context in a specific line of inquiry rather than a "blanket for evermore written in stone one"

!

Eta it may BE they are not suspects but that Redwood statement is not proof

[Mr Gray]

No, there is not. There is one statement from 3 years ago given in a specific context in a specific line of inquiry rather than a "blanket for evermore written in stone one"

!

#yes there is...you need to understand what evidence is...it does not have to be written in stone