More recent events related to Madeleine McCann's case

[sadie]

I've read the statements and watched the videos, I've even read the statements which, it was alleged, were leaked to a Spanish journalist. I can't judge which version is correct and I'm not as prepared to make assumptions as you are.

Gunit, please acknowledge that a decent gust would blow such cheap flimsy curtains and open closed ones in doing so.   They may have reclosed after the gust or they may have stayed open depending upon if the runners were free running. 

From memory, the bigger gusts were recorded at over 20mph at about the time Kate checked.   

[Brietta]

Oh, Billy, please don't act like a simpleton.  We know that you are not.



For any simpletons around:

We all know that with very cheap flimsy curtains such as these, when a sturdy gust of wind blows them, they fly inwards and open.

Hadn't you noticed that Billy?

We've seen Rebelo at the widow of No5 making an inspection.
Obviously he must have been satisfied by what he saw.

Paulo Rebelo opens the window to Maddie's bedroom

Two things to note

• the flimsy curtains which would easily be moved by a draught
• how big the actual window is which would allow easy ingress or egress or passing a child through to an accomplice

[barrier]

Why does expressing my opinion automatically go down as disruption in your eyes? Would you prefer an echo chamber where everyone just agrees CB, or the latest paedophile suspect, is the guilty party?

Of course it would , but maybe not from that particular poster.

[Venturi Swirl]

It’s clear to me that G-Unit, Billy, Spam et al have double standards when it comes to accepting what is evidence.  Hearsay evidence if it’s against the McCanns is “important “, “concrete”, etc, but hearsay evidence from the McCanns themselves is not considered evidence at all.  I think that just about sums up the problem we have here.

[Wonderfulspam]

The McCanns couldn't be trusted to look after their own kids. So it isn't unreasonable to doubt them on any other given subject.

[Venturi Swirl]

The McCanns couldn't be trusted to look after their own kids. So it isn't unreasonable to doubt them on any other given subject.

I’m not talking about trustworthiness (how well do you know Mr Smith for example?) I’m talking about the concept of evidence - you accept Smith’s statement as evidence, you don’t accept Kates’s statement as evidence. Whether both or neither is true or false is beside the point as far as the concept of what constitutes evidence is concerned.  I know there is no point trying to appeal to your sense of fairness or reasonabless, hopefully though others will understand what I am saying.

[G-Unit]

It’s clear to me that G-Unit, Billy, Spam et al have double standards when it comes to accepting what is evidence.  Hearsay evidence if it’s against the McCanns is “important “, “concrete”, etc, but hearsay evidence from the McCanns themselves is not considered evidence at all.  I think that just about sums up the problem we have here.

Firstly, I'm not sure you understand what hearsay evidence is, but if you give some examples I will probably understand what you mean.

Secondly, the evidence relating to the open window and shutters was uncorroberated (like the dog alerts). They weren't seen by any of the witnesses present and there was no forensic evidence confirming they had been opened.
The PJ doubted that it was possible that a draught would have the effect described by one of the witnesses;

The situation that concerns the window of the bedroom where MADELEINE slept, together with the twins, which was open, according to KATE. It would be necessary to clarify whether there was a draft, due to the fact that movement of the curtains and pressure under the bedroom door are mentioned, which would eventually be clarified through the reconstitution.
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/P_J_FINAL_REPORT.htm

 

[G-Unit]

Gunit, please acknowledge that a decent gust would blow such cheap flimsy curtains and open closed ones in doing so.   They may have reclosed after the gust or they may have stayed open depending upon if the runners were free running. 

From memory, the bigger gusts were recorded at over 20mph at about the time Kate checked.

I am not able to judge the cost and weight of a set of curtains from a photograph, but they don't appear particularly cheap and flimsy to me. Therefore I'm not prepared to speculate about how they might behave. I'm also aware that there is disagreement about the weather that evening.

[Venturi Swirl]

Firstly, I'm not sure you understand what hearsay evidence is, but if you give some examples I will probably understand what you mean.

Secondly, the evidence relating to the open window and shutters was uncorroberated (like the dog alerts). They weren't seen by any of the witnesses present and there was no forensic evidence confirming they had been opened.
The PJ doubted that it was possible that a draught would have the effect described by one of the witnesses;

The situation that concerns the window of the bedroom where MADELEINE slept, together with the twins, which was open, according to KATE. It would be necessary to clarify whether there was a draft, due to the fact that movement of the curtains and pressure under the bedroom door are mentioned, which would eventually be clarified through the reconstitution.
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/P_J_FINAL_REPORT.htm

It was Billy Whizz who  used the word “hearsay” to describe Kate’s statement about the open window.  He rejects her statement as evidence of abduction- do you?  If so why?  Sometimes evidence is given in court with no corroboration, it’s still evidence is it not?  Finally, you also appear to reject completely the fact that the open window WAS corroborated by an independent witness, why is her account not evidence of an abduction  in your view?  You may have decided she was wrong or lying but it doesn’t stop her statement being evidence. 

[Venturi Swirl]

I am not able to judge the cost and weight of a set of curtains from a photograph, but they don't appear particularly cheap and flimsy to me. Therefore I'm not prepared to speculate about how they might behave. I'm also aware that there is disagreement about the weather that evening.

So basically you reject any other explanation other than that Kate McCann misremembered or lied, right?

[G-Unit]

I’m not talking about trustworthiness (how well do you know Mr Smith for example?) I’m talking about the concept of evidence - you accept Smith’s statement as evidence, you don’t accept Kates’s statement as evidence. Whether both or neither is true or false is beside the point as far as the concept of what constitutes evidence is concerned.  I know there is no point trying to appeal to your sense of fairness or reasonabless, hopefully though others will understand what I am saying.

Smith's evidence was corroberated by other family members. They all saw the man carrying the child and were all agreed about his description. If you are referring to Smith's later claim that the man was Gerry McCann, that was his uncorroborated opinion to which he's entitled. As it's uncorroborated, it may be nothing (like the dog alerts) or it may be intelligence (like the dog alerts).

[Mr Gray]

It was Billy Whizz who  used the word “hearsay” to describe Kate’s statement about the open window.  He rejects her statement as evidence of abduction- do you?  If so why?  Sometimes evidence is given in court with no corroboration, it’s still evidence is it not?  Finally, you also appear to reject completely the fact that the open window WAS corroborated by an independent witness, why is her account not evidence of an abduction  in your view?  You may have decided she was wrong or lying but it doesn’t stop her statement being evidence.

Just a point of law.. Kates statement is not hearsay. Hearsay evidence is when a statement is produced where the person who made the statement is not oresent in court

[Venturi Swirl]

Just a point of law.. Kates statement is not hearsay. Hearsay evidence is when a statement is produced where the person who made the statement is not oresent in court

Point taken.

[Venturi Swirl]

Smith's evidence was corroberated by other family members. They all saw the man carrying the child and were all agreed about his description. If you are referring to Smith's later claim that the man was Gerry McCann, that was his uncorroborated opinion to which he's entitled. As it's uncorroborated, it may be nothing (like the dog alerts) or it may be intelligence (like the dog alerts).

You accept corroborated evidence from friends and family except when its friends and family evidence corroborating the McCanns’ account then? 

[Venturi Swirl]

As I recall The Ciprianos were convicted on the strength of one uncorroborated confession, and one unoccoborated witness sighting of Joana apparently on her way home.   So - how come that's good enough for McCann sceptics?