Was there ever any evidence of criminality against the McCanns?

[Chinagirl]

What is this word "INDIVATION?"  Not one I've come across before, nor is it in my COED.

The thread title is now "What is the evidence of criminality against the McCanns?"  (Than k you for the change, Angelo). 

[debunker]

But in legal and normal (dictionary) terms evidence does not need to be TRUTH

wouldn't that be perjury by the person presenting such "evidence" to court?

No.

Please don't get me on to the meaning of perjury which is a DELIBERATE untruth with intent to derail justice, not a statement, for instance, made in error.

[AnneGuedes]

But in legal and normal (dictionary) terms evidence does not need to be TRUTH

wouldn't that be perjury by the person presenting such "evidence" to court?

In Romano-German system the accused has all rights, even the one to lie. Perjury doesn't exist.

[AnneGuedes]

... They considered all the evidence and made a final report summing the evidence up and recommended the Prosecutor to charge the McCanns. The Prosecutor reviwed the evidence in depth and decided that there was no case to answer.

If there was no evidence at all against the McCanns, the process could not have started at all. It is illegal under Portuguese law to force the status of arguido on someone without evidence (now reasonable evidnece.)

The PJ doesn't have to recommend to charge or not to, it's not its role.
It would be better to use "person of interest" for "arguido" than "suspect".

[Carana]

Is Gerry McCann saying ""F*** off, I'm not here to enjoy myself" evidence against him?  I just want to get a handle on what does and does not constitute evidence in this debate.

If Kate had caved in and was willing to be blackmailed* into saying that there had been an accidental death to protect the other children, then it would seem that anything could have been submitted as complementary "evidence". Cf Leonor and the fact that she gave interviews wearing a dark top.


* Blackmailed isn't the right term. Bluffed in the face of a potential murder charge.

[Angelo222]

Here are the words of a Portuguese Law expert (my emphasis):

Detectives invoke arguido status on someone as a preliminary to an arrest being made or charges brought, a Portuguese law expert, Lita Gale, told Guardian Unlimited today.

"If you are an arguido they have to have suspicion that a crime has been committed by that person," she said.

(My note- in order to have a 'suspicion, one needs evidence against the person- no evidence, no suspicion)

She added that when someone's status moves from that of a witness to an arguido, the police interview technique changes.

"Depending on the answers they may be moving towards a prosecution. If you cannot provide an alibi or the right answers they may move to prosecute. This is a serious moment. The suspect may be close to being charged," Ms Gale said.

Technically, police should treat someone as an arguido as soon as they have sufficient evidence. However, in some circumstances they may hold back to give somebody "a false sense of security", she added.

In practical terms, a person has to be declared an arguido before he or she can be arrested. Police may also ask a local court to place restrictions on a person's movement and oblige them to not leave the country.

Once a case file is completed, the police pass it to the public ministry, the equivalent of the crown prosecution service, which decides whether an "acusacao" or indictment is brought.

(My Note: The case file is a summsry of all the evidence applicable to the case)

Yes and we all know why the McCanns were made arguidos dont we???

To remind you>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  because they thought Madeleines DNA was found in the hire car.

THE FOOLS!!!!   

[Angelo222]

Or to put it another way >>>> The EVIDENCE they THOUGHT they had turned out to be USELESS!!!   

      

[debunker]

Here are the words of a Portuguese Law expert (my emphasis):

Detectives invoke arguido status on someone as a preliminary to an arrest being made or charges brought, a Portuguese law expert, Lita Gale, told Guardian Unlimited today.

"If you are an arguido they have to have suspicion that a crime has been committed by that person," she said.

(My note- in order to have a 'suspicion, one needs evidence against the person- no evidence, no suspicion)

She added that when someone's status moves from that of a witness to an arguido, the police interview technique changes.

"Depending on the answers they may be moving towards a prosecution. If you cannot provide an alibi or the right answers they may move to prosecute. This is a serious moment. The suspect may be close to being charged," Ms Gale said.

Technically, police should treat someone as an arguido as soon as they have sufficient evidence. However, in some circumstances they may hold back to give somebody "a false sense of security", she added.

In practical terms, a person has to be declared an arguido before he or she can be arrested. Police may also ask a local court to place restrictions on a person's movement and oblige them to not leave the country.

Once a case file is completed, the police pass it to the public ministry, the equivalent of the crown prosecution service, which decides whether an "acusacao" or indictment is brought.

(My Note: The case file is a summsry of all the evidence applicable to the case)

Yes and we all know why the McCanns were made arguidos dont we???

To remind you>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  because they thought Madeleines DNA was found in the hire car.

THE FOOLS!!!!   

And that FALSE evidence was still Evidence against the McCanns.

[Angelo222]

It is not a myth that there is no probative evidence- make that a confirmed myth if you wish, but it is also a myth that there is no evidence against the McCanns- such evidence wexists, and denying it does not make it a true statement.

I will put up a Poll and let the members decide.

Another new word probative...hmmm   must look that up in the dictionary.   

According to your own definition debunker there is evidence against everyone the moment they get out of bed in the morning and in a manner of speaking there is.  There is evidence I went to the toilet today, there is evidence I fed my cats and there is evidence I spilt the milk....that reminds me.   

What we are concerned with is evidence of criminality just in case you have forgotten in te mist of posts.

[Angelo222]

And that FALSE evidence was still Evidence against the McCanns.

Ha ha ......now you have really dug a hole for yourself.

False evidence??  You really would be laughed out of court on that one.   

[amaraltheofficeboy]

debunker

And that FALSE evidence was still Evidence against the McCanns.

what is the point........

[debunker]

And that FALSE evidence was still Evidence against the McCanns.

Ha ha ......now you have really dug a hole for yourself.

False evidence??  You really would be laughed out of court on that one.   

As I keep on saying- look at the definition.

Evidence needs to be weighed. Some evidence will be probative, some evidence will be false. If you had read the other thread you will see that initially evidence is defined as 'information'; information may be true or false.

I am still waiting for a single cite or reference from your side of this argument to back up your private language use of the word.

[debunker]

debunker

And that FALSE evidence was still Evidence against the McCanns.

what is the point........

Sorry, could you clarify.

My point is that words should be used how they are defined in the dictionary.

[debunker]

Is Gerry McCann saying ""F*** off, I'm not here to enjoy myself" evidence against him?  I just want to get a handle on what does and does not constitute evidence in this debate.

If Kate had caved in and was willing to be blackmailed* into saying that there had been an accidental death to protect the other children, then it would seem that anything could have been submitted as complementary "evidence". Cf Leonor and the fact that she gave interviews wearing a dark top.


* Blackmailed isn't the right term. Bluffed in the face of a potential murder charge.

So, "evidence against the McCanns," includes pretty much anything (no matter how useless it is), depending on who is deciding what is and isn't evidence - is that right or am I misunderstanding?

That is the dictionary definition, yes. Evidence is any information (of whatever standard) that might be presented to prove a point.

For instance in this argument, I have given my opinion (pretty valueless) but I have also cited dictionaries, both Ordinary and Legal to show that Evidence is just information, whether true or false, probative or not. The other side has given their opinion (again pretty valueless) and no other information/evidence.

[debunker]

And that FALSE evidence was still Evidence against the McCanns.

Ha ha ......now you have really dug a hole for yourself.

False evidence??  You really would be laughed out of court on that one.   

http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-false-evidence.htm#slideshow

"False evidence is evidence presented in a legal case that cannot legally be relied upon for any number of reasons, ranging from genuine forgery of evidence to illegal means of procurement that bar the evidence from court even if it is factually valid. This can include spoken testimony, as well as physical evidence. The standards of evidence are designed to exclude false evidence but there have been a number of noted cases involving questionable evidence that led to convictions or acquittals in legal cases.

"Inadmissible evidence includes evidence acquired illegally, such as evidence taken during an illegal stop and search, along with evidence that was not properly documented when it was collected. If there are doubts about the chain of custody for evidence, it must also be excluded on the grounds that it could have been falsified or forged. Once evidence is collected, it must be in the control of law enforcement at all times, whether it is in the physical custody of an officer or in a secured lockup area where evidence can be stored. If evidence is left out without adequate supervision at any point, it is compromised, and cannot be used in court."