Have we learned anything new after almost 16 years?

[Eleanor]

Others place him at the tapas, that's their evidence, true. That would be exculpatory evidence. So, Smiths 60 to 80% ID would also be evidence, wouldn't it.

No.

[Wonderfulspam]

No.

Why not? Can you explain to me why the witnesses at the tapas can give their evidence, but Martin Smith cannot?

[Eleanor]

Why not? Can you explain to me why the witnesses at the tapas can give their evidence, but Martin Smith cannot?

You don't know much about The Law do you.  Rhetorical Question.

[Wonderfulspam]

You don't know much about The Law do you.  Rhetorical Question.

I'll take that as a no then.

[Wonderfulspam]

Witness statements are evidence. It's a simple enough concept that some seem unable to grasp. The McCanns have given their evidence, the other Tapas Guests did also, & so did Martin Smith. They have all presented evidence, haven't they? If not, then, What???

[Eleanor]

Mr. Smith, are you sure it was Gerry McCann?   No.   End of.

[Wonderfulspam]

Mr. Smith, are you sure it was Gerry McCann?   No.   End of.

Mr Smith: But I'm more certain than not that it was him.
You see, you just presented the argument as if within a court setting. So the witness Mr Smith would be giving evidence, wouldn't he?

[Vertigo Swirl]

No.

I (respectfully) disagree.  It is evidence as pretty much everything collected in the files could be construed as such, but insofar as helping to prove that Gerry McCann carried his child's corpse through town past a large group of strangers I think it is extraordinarily weak and virtually worthless on its own.  Should there have been several sightings of a man looking like Gerry walking through town at the same time carrying a child then it would have been given more credence.  As it was several witnesses put Gerry in the Tapas restaurant at around the time of the sighting and that is why the PJ concluded it was not him. 

[Wonderfulspam]

Imagine for a moment if you will, that Smith had been 60/80% he saw Brueckner. But, Brueckner maintained he was romancing in his camper at the time. I'm pretty sure we'd have to agree that, weak though it may be, it would be evidence against him.

[Eleanor]

Mr. Smith's "Evidence" would never have seen the inside of a Court Room.

[Wonderfulspam]

Mr. Smith's "Evidence" would never have seen the inside of a Court Room.

True, possibly, but completely beside the point. At least we've finally come to understand what evidence is.
It's demonstrably false to say that there is no evidence whatsoever against the McCanns. Perhaps you could avoid making this claim again in future & I can get back to tending my hanging baskets. The Petunias have spread & are beginning to flower quite nicely as it happens.

[Eleanor]

Is False Evidence actually Evidence?

[jassi]

I think it would need to be proved to be false before it could be discarded as non-evidence.
For example if someone made a statement to the effect that person X  was present in a certain place at a certain time, that would be evidence, unless it was proved to be untrue. ie a false alibi.

[Eleanor]

I think it would need to be proved to be false before it could be discarded as non-evidence.
For example if someone made a statement to the effect that person X  was present in a certain place at a certain time, that would be evidence, unless it was proved to be untrue. ie a false alibi.

So seven people giving someone an alibi are hardly likely to be lying.

[jassi]

So seven people giving someone an alibi are hardly likely to be lying.

Unless it was a deliberate conspiracy to pervert the course of justice by providing false alibis.
I believe criminals do it all the time.  Even MPs have been known to use  such antics.