The use of the term 'abductor' should be qualified by caveat.

[Alice Purjorick]

There is no evidence of abduction and that is why you constantly avoid answering anyone who points this out. Genuine child abduction cases are usually supported by evidence of some sort or other.  However, in the case of Maddie, there was no forensic evidence of any illegal entry or disturbance of any sort. Add to that the non cooperation with those charged with investigating the case, a conspiracy to discredit the lead detective and the attempts to influence the investigation by introducing false sightings and we have the makings of something extremely suspicious and concerning.

Do you mean like some of the strange things in here ?
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/RE_ENACTMENT.htm

[Alice Purjorick]

Long established by armchair defectives maybe, but not by any organisation that anyone would take seriously.  And what about these deliberate false sightings then?  Got proof of that have you?

So you are fully cognisant of what The Met unearthed after they removed the files from the offices of Metodo3 ?


Edited grammar

[carlymichelle]

the problem is with the  mcann supporters  abduction= the mcanns  innocent in their  eyes  but  we unbiased and not emotionally involved  know this is unlikley dont  we?? so they cling to it  as a  fact

[Alice Purjorick]

I already have done several times...try google ...its fairly straightforward


Evidence, broadly construed, is anything presented in support of an assertion.[1] This support may be strong or weak. The strongest type of evidence is that which provides direct proof of the truth of an assertion. At the other extreme is evidence that is merely consistent with an assertion but does not rule out other, contradictory assertions, as in circumstantial evidence.

Just to be clear: this is the definition upon which you rely?

[Mr Gray]

Just to be clear: this is the definition upon which you rely?

just to be very clear...yes
at least I have provided a definition

[carlymichelle]

Just to be clear: this is the definition upon which you rely?

i dont  really believe anything main stream media anymore most people dont the media  is for one thing to make money  for journos etc and they do it  anyway they can dont they even if it means exploting  children etc and gullible people   believe every word they say...

[Erngath]

the problem is with the  mcann supporters  abduction= the mcanns  innocent in their  eyes  but  we unbiased and not emotionally involved  know this is unlikley dont  we?? so they cling to it  as a  fact

Supporters being "emotionally involved" is a recurring accusation by you.
Can I ask what you mean by this?

[Alice Purjorick]

just to be very clear...yes
at least I have provided a definition

Good. The legal definition of circumstantial evidence being:
"Indirect or circumstantial evidence implies that the defendant was involved in the crime, and is typically sufficient to convict a defendant if the evidence and inferences drawn from the evidence can be used to establish that the defendant is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt".
The problem with direct evidence being it relies on someone witnessing the event.

[Mr Gray]

Good. The legal definition of circumstantial evidence being:
"Indirect or circumstantial evidence implies that the defendant was involved in the crime, and is typically sufficient to convict a defendant if the evidence and inferences drawn from the evidence can be used to establish that the defendant is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt".
The problem with direct evidence being it relies on someone witnessing the event.

so you are saying that what you have posted is THE legal definition of circumstantial evidence....the answer you are looking for is
no
it isnt

[Alice Purjorick]

so you are saying that what you have posted is THE legal definition of circumstantial evidence....the answer you are looking for is
no
it isnt

OK so let's have what you think the definition of circumstantial evidence is.

[stephen25000]

OK so let's have what you think the definition of circumstantial evidence is.

Now would that be anything which favours the McCann's ?

[Mr Gray]

Good. The legal definition of circumstantial evidence being:
"Indirect or circumstantial evidence implies that the defendant was involved in the crime, and is typically sufficient to convict a defendant if the evidence and inferences drawn from the evidence can be used to establish that the defendant is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt".
The problem with direct evidence being it relies on someone witnessing the event.

that is not a definition of circumstantial evidence...its quite obvious you have simply taken a portion of the definition to post here

[Lace]

All these rules,   it's why  I don't post on here much these days.

Mark Rowley said that however Madeleine left the apartment she was abducted,   so saying 'abductor'  surely can't be misleading.

[Mr Gray]

OK so let's have what you think the definition of circumstantial evidence is.

this IS a definition of circumstantail 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. By contrast, direct evidence supports the truth of an assertion directly—i.e., without need for any additional evidence or inference.

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. Together, they may more strongly support one particular inference over another. An explanation involving circumstantial evidence becomes more likely once alternative explanations have been ruled out

[G-Unit]

All these rules,   it's why  I don't post on here much these days.

Mark Rowley said that however Madeleine left the apartment she was abducted,   so saying 'abductor'  surely can't be misleading.

Is there some reason why we have to believe everything the police tell us? I thought they had occasionally got it wrong in previous cases.