Was there ever any evidence of criminality against the McCanns?

[debunker]

For heavens sake stop waffling Debunker and tell us what this evidence is?  If you can???

Means, motive, opportunity.

Dog alerts to  ?cadaver scent
Lack of alibi
Muddled time line
Smith sighting

All of that is included in the definition of evidence above.

It is pretty seriously deficient in probative force. But it is evidence all the same.

You have been asked to provide evidence that the McCanns are implicated in a crime which you have summarily prevaricated and failed to do.  Do read the thread title.

I have read the thread title. Have you?

It reads:

"What is the evidence against the McCanns"

I have produced a list above.

Evidence is any material that may support (not necessarily 'prove') an assertion.

The material I have produced doed support (but does not prove) the assertion.

[Jean-Pierre]

I am inclined to agree with Angelo.  None of those could be classified as "evidence of criminal activity" in a legal context.  Not even close.

Angelo - you must excuse my old friend Debunker.  He will argue until the cows come home (and then leave again because they can't stand the arguments).

[Angelo222]

The question is  "What is the evidence against the McCanns".   It is not "What is the evidence in the case".

You obviously don't understand the concept of evidence Debunker.  Taken at its highest what you have provided wouldn't even get you past the starting block.  What you have referred to is what is called "neutral evidence" and is not in any way shape or form AGAINST the McCanns.


The McCann had neither the Means, the Motive or the Opportunity to partake in any crime the night Madeleine disappeared.

In addition, dog alerts to cadaver scent is inconclusive so meaningless.
Both McCanns had an alibi that night.
Muddled time line was to be expected and is not evidence of a crime.
The Smith sighting has no relation to McCanns as shown by the corroborated facts.

[Angelo222]

Debunker is confusing Evidence with Evidence Of A Crime.

In the thread title the operative word is 'AGAINST'.

[debunker]

http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-criminal-evidence.htm
"Criminal evidence is any exhibit or testimony regarding a crime."

If I go into a police station and say that I have just seen Mr Pink shoot Mr White in the street, the police would make a written note of what I said, possibly ask me to complete and sign a witness statement. My allegation, the policeman's note and my statement is all evidence against Mr Pink. Investigating further they find that Mr Pink was present and holding a gun that had recently been fired- opportunity and means. Quite a bit of evidence. Then a further piece if evidence is discovered- Mr Pink and Mr White were actors in an open air filming session and the bullet was a blank. No proof, no crime, but plenty of evidence to be considered, weighed and a conclusion drawn.

There js a real difference between Evidence and Proof.

[Claudia]

i think the point angello is making is that the thread is about evidence which can show some sort of guilt against gerry or kate as against evidence in general.   what is this evidence against them or is this another myth? 

http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-criminal-evidence.htm
"Criminal evidence is any exhibit or testimony regarding a crime."

If I go into a police station and say that I have just seen Mr Pink shoot Mr White in the street, the police would make a written note of what I said, possibly ask me to complete and sign a witness statement. My allegation, the policeman's note and my statement is all evidence against Mr Pink. Investigating further they find that Mr Pink was present and holding a gun that had recently been fired- opportunity and means. Quite a bit of evidence. Then a further piece if evidence is discovered- Mr Pink and Mr White were actors in an open air filming session and the bullet was a blank. No proof, no crime, but plenty of evidence to be considered, weighed and a conclusion drawn.

There js a real difference between Evidence and Proof.

[debunker]

Evidence that can show guilt has a technical name- PROOF.

There is no PROOF against the McCanns

There is EVIDENCE against them.

[debunker]

It is a cop out to claim it is just semantics.

It is a principle of law (at least in England and Wales) that if words are not defined in statute, then they should be seen to have there everyday meaning).

It is undeniable that there is 'evidence' (...anything presented in support of an assertion. 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.) against the McCanns.

Debunker, there was evidence that Colin Stagg killed Rachel Nickell.  As we now know he didn't kill her so was that evidence merely "weak" or was it non-existent?

Evidence is neither weak nor strong. Its probative value may be weak or strong.

People are confusing the meaning of the words EVIDENCE and PROOF.

[Angelo222]

Evidence that can show guilt has a technical name- PROOF.

There is no PROOF against the McCanns

There is EVIDENCE against them.

You are being silly now Debunker.   Do you understand the concept of what is required under the law to prosecute someone and more importantly what neutral evidence is?

[Jean-Pierre]

OK, you didnt heed the warning.  But I am afraid you b....rs have asked for it.

Legal Evidence and Proof:  Kaptein, Prakken and Verheij.

The synopsis is here. 

http://www.ashgate.com/pdf/SamplePages/Legal_Evidence_and_Proof_Intro.pdf

That should keep you busy for a few hours........

[debunker]

Evidence that can show guilt has a technical name- PROOF.

There is no PROOF against the McCanns

There is EVIDENCE against them.

You are being silly now Debunker.   Do you understand the concept of what is required under the law to prosecute someone and more importantly what neutral evidence is?

No, I am afraid it is you that is being silly.

Let's do dictionaries:

Collins:

Evidence: 1/ Ground for belief or disbelief; data on which to base proof or establish truth or falsehood.

Chambers

Evidence: that which makes anything evident; means of proving an unknown or disputed fact; support (eg for a belief); indication; information in a law case; testimony; a witness or witnesses collectively

OED Concise

2/ Indication, Sign; ... testimony, facts, in support of ...  a conclusion. ...  3/ (Law) Information (given personally or drawn from documents etc. ) tending to establish facts...


It seems that the dictionaries agree with me. Who agrees with your definition?

[Jean-Pierre]

I particularly like this:

code of Hammurabi:

if a man charge a man with sorcery, but cannot convict him, he who is charged
with sorcery shall go to the sacred river, and he shall throw himself in the sacred
river; if the river overcome him, his prosecutor shall take to himself his house.

if the river show the man to be innocent and he come forth unharmed, he that
charged him with sorcery shall be put to death. He who threw himself into the
river shall take to himself the house of his accuser.

[debunker]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yp_l5ntikaU

[debunker]

"It's a fair cop"!!!!

[Angelo222]

So are we all agreed then that there is no evidence against the McCanns capable of sustaining any allegation of guilt in respect of any crime or criminal act??