More recent events related to Madeleine McCann's case

[Billy Whizz Fan Club]

So an open window definitely can be ruled out as evidence of abduction because….?

It's circumstantial evidence, and there are more than one possible reason for an open window.

There's the burglar example above. It could also be evidence of staging too.

[Billy Whizz Fan Club]

I knew you wouldn’t be able to explain and I was right.

I disagree. It is circumstantial evidence. On its own testimony that there was an open window does not prove an abduction. That is only one possibility.

[Vertigo Swirl]

  - were you there in the police station when she gave her first account then?  You do realise when you saw her giving her account she'd had to repeat her account probably dozens of times already don't you?  Do you accept that her statement re: the open window is evidence of abduction or not?

[Billy Whizz Fan Club]

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.

That isn't true. I'm prepared to examine any evidence that is debated here. I'm happy to look at hearsay, forensic evidence, witness testimony, circumstantial evidence etc etc (and none of these are mutually exclusive either).

I asked for evidence of an abduction. So far we have Kate McCann saying there was an open window. I'm sorry but on its own I'm not going to conclude from that that there was definitely an abduction.

[Vertigo Swirl]

It's circumstantial evidence, and there are more than one possible reason for an open window.

There's the burglar example above. It could also be evidence of staging too.

Hallelujah!  It's evidence of an abduction.  Thank YOU!!!  Yes it could be evidence of something else, but when someone says that there is NO EVIDENCE OF ABDUCTION that is patently false agreed?

[Vertigo Swirl]

I disagree. It is circumstantial evidence. On its own testimony that there was an open window does not prove an abduction. That is only one possibility.

Why do you disagree?  I said it was evidence, you agree it is evidence.  I didn't specify what sort of evidence nor did I describe it as proof. 

[Vertigo Swirl]

That isn't true. I'm prepared to examine any evidence that is debated here. I'm happy to look at hearsay, forensic evidence, witness testimony, circumstantial evidence etc etc (and none of these are mutually exclusive either).

I asked for evidence of an abduction. So far we have Kate McCann saying there was an open window. I'm sorry but on its own I'm not going to conclude from that that there was definitely an abduction.

Again, you are making a false assumption that I said Kate's evidence proved it was definitely an abduction - stop misrepresenting what I said please.

[Mr Gray]

I disagree. It is circumstantial evidence. On its own testimony that there was an open window does not prove an abduction. That is only one possibility.

Its evidence but not proof

[Billy Whizz Fan Club]

- were you there in the police station when she gave her first account then?  You do realise when you saw her giving her account she'd had to repeat her account probably dozens of times already don't you?  Do you accept that her statement re: the open window is evidence of abduction or not?

Testimony from a witness that there was a window open in the children's bedroom that had been left closed does not prove there was an abduction. There are a number of inferences that could be drawn from the testimony.

Respectfully, can you please leave out comments such as the one about me not being in the Police station. Let's just look at the evidence and debate it. Thank you.

[Billy Whizz Fan Club]

Its evidence but not proof

Correct sir I agree.

[Billy Whizz Fan Club]

Why do you disagree?  I said it was evidence, you agree it is evidence.  I didn't specify what sort of evidence nor did I describe it as proof.

I accepted it as evidence. I described it as such. My problem is claiming abduction is the only conclusion that can be drawn. Dave is spot on. It is evidence but not proof. I think we all agree on that.

[Lace]

Testimony from a witness that there was a window open in the children's bedroom that had been left closed does not prove there was an abduction. There are a number of inferences that could be drawn from the testimony.

Respectfully, can you please leave out comments such as the one about me not being in the Police station. Let's just look at the evidence and debate it. Thank you.

What other are the other inferences that could be drawn from the window being open?    It was left closed,  it was open when Kate checked on the children.

[Vertigo Swirl]

Testimony from a witness that there was a window open in the children's bedroom that had been left closed does not prove there was an abduction. There are a number of inferences that could be drawn from the testimony.

Respectfully, can you please leave out comments such as the one about me not being in the Police station. Let's just look at the evidence and debate it. Thank you.

Respectfully, can you stop misrepresenting what I said - I never said Kate's statement proved abduction so why do you keep saying that?  Also, if you're going to cast doubts on Kate's integrity I think I am entitled to point out the logic failure in how you arrived at your beliefs.

[Lace]

I'm not a trained criminal psychologist but to me the very well rehearsed whoooosh and door slam comes across as storytelling in my own personal opinion. It seems to be embellishment in my opinion. That was my own personal impression. However, that doesn't necessarily mean she is lying she might have practised the storytelling and embellishment to try to make her own honest belief sound more plausible.

Yet Amaral said in his book the nights were windy.    Why make that up?  Why not just say the abductor came in through the Patio doors?   They told the Police the Patio doors were left open.   Why not leave marks on the window outside dirt on the bed covers,  come on if you are going to make out an abduction happened leave more clues.

[Vertigo Swirl]

I accepted it as evidence. I described it as such. My problem is claiming abduction is the only conclusion that can be drawn. Dave is spot on. It is evidence but not proof. I think we all agree on that.

Can you please point to any post I ever made in which I claimed it was proof?  What you're doing is classic strawman argumentation, please stop it.