According to some, there is certainly circumstantial evidence of abduction.

[Vertigo Swirl]

Yes.

No I have not.
Now try answering my post again, this time honestly and directly:

Do you concede however that there is a possibility that the McCanns are telling the truth?  If so, do you accept that the evidence that I have outlined is therefore circumstantial evidence of an abduction?

[byron]

Expresso.

About the filing of the Maddie case.

http://expresso.sapo.pt/arquivo/sobre-o-arquivamento-do-caso-maddie=f372712#gs.uN4H0jY

[Mr Gray]

Expresso.

About the filing of the Maddie case.

http://expresso.sapo.pt/arquivo/sobre-o-arquivamento-do-caso-maddie=f372712#gs.uN4H0jY

I don't see how anyone could argue with that... And from s Portuguese source too

[Alice Purjorick]

Maybe it's time to revisit the definition of circumstantial evidence and a few of the types thereof ?

"Evidence which may allow a judge or jury to deduce a certain fact from other facts which have been proven".

Just for starters:
1) Behavioral including any denials, evasions, contradictions and the general conduct of the "accused".
2) Most scientific is circumstantial, as it requires a jury to make a connection between the circumstance and the fact in issue.
3) Indirect witness testimony e.g the Tanner sighting.

[Carana]

Who knows whether she is guilty or not ?
It's never been tested in court and  as far as casual  observers are concerned, it's all down to individual belief

But then we go around in circles.

WHOEVER may eventually end up in court, the inescapable fact is that a missing child still hasn't been found, dead or alive.

For the moment, no one knows whether or not there is a link to the sexual attacks on children in the area over a period of years or not.

There might not be a connnection, but I do hope that whoever attacked or even just terrified those kids is eventually identified. As I'm sure we all do.

[Vertigo Swirl]

from Wikipedia:
   
Circumstantial evidence

Circumstantial evidence is evidence that relies on an inference to connect it to a conclusion of fact—like a fingerprint at the scene of a crime. By contrast, direct evidence supports the truth of an assertion directly—i.e., without need for any additional evidence or inference.

On its own, circumstantial evidence allows for more than one explanation. Different pieces of circumstantial evidence may be required, so that each corroborates the conclusions drawn from the others. Together, they may more strongly support one particular inference over another. An explanation involving circumstantial evidence becomes more likely once alternative explanations have been ruled out[citation needed].

Circumstantial evidence allows a trier of fact to infer that a fact exists.[1] In criminal law, the inference is made by the trier of fact in order to support the truth of an assertion (of guilt or absence of guilt).

[jassi]

But then we go around in circles.

WHOEVER may eventually end up in court, the inescapable fact is that a missing child still hasn't been found, dead or alive.

For the moment, no one knows whether or not there is a link to the sexual attacks on children in the area over a period of years or not.

There might not be a connnection, but I do hope that whoever attacked or even just terrified those kids is eventually identified. As I'm sure we all do.

Going round in circles is all we ever do.

OG looked at these alleged attacks but  they didn't seem to lead anywhere and it's not really within their remit to take it any further.

[G-Unit]

No I have not.
Now try answering my post again, this time honestly and directly:

Do you concede however that there is a possibility that the McCanns are telling the truth?  If so, do you accept that the evidence that I have outlined is therefore circumstantial evidence of an abduction?

If the McCanns are telling the truth Kate found an open window and shutters in Madeleine's bedroom and she was gone.

She thought the open window and shutters were evidence that someone had abducted her daughter. That's what she told her husband and friends; someone's taken Madeleine.

Gerry McCann then demonstrates that it wasn't necessary to be inside the bedroom to open the shutters and window, it could be done from outside.

If it was done from the outside another possible motive arises; burglary. With this possibility comes another explanation for the missing child. Awoken and scared, she might have run off.

Why was this possibility not considered?

[Mr Gray]

If the McCanns are telling the truth Kate found an open window and shutters in Madeleine's bedroom and she was gone.

She thought the open window and shutters were evidence that someone had abducted her daughter. That's what she told her husband and friends; someone's taken Madeleine.

Gerry McCann then demonstrates that it wasn't necessary to be inside the bedroom to open the shutters and window, it could be done from outside.

If it was done from the outside another possible motive arises; burglary. With this possibility comes another explanation for the missing child. Awoken and scared, she might have run off.

Why was this possibility not considered?

I think it was considered she would have run to the, reception...

[byron]

But then we go around in circles.

WHOEVER may eventually end up in court, the inescapable fact is that a missing child still hasn't been found, dead or alive.

For the moment, no one knows whether or not there is a link to the sexual attacks on children in the area over a period of years or not.

There might not be a connnection, but I do hope that whoever attacked or even just terrified those kids is eventually identified. As I'm sure we all do.

At the time of the disappearance of the girl from the Ocean Club village, on May 3, at least seven specific situations of sexual abuse were reported to the local authorities for children housed with relatives in the same area and in surrounding areas. In one of these cases, a pedophile would have entered a room where the minor victim was, and masturbated at the front of the room when the child was lying in bed. GNR, at the time of its receipt and the six other complaints, communicated them to the Judiciary Police. It was possible to conclude that at least five situations will have occurred before the disappearance of the child. However, none of the situations came to be used as a line of investigation. Now, ten years later, the Met wants to revive this scenario even because, according to British media reports yesterday, British investigators are in possession of a list of 38 sex offenders who were identified, at the time of the disappearance of the child, in the vicinity of Praia da Luz.

Ler mais em: http://www.cmjornal.pt/portugal/detalhe/ingleses-investigam-7-abusos-sexuais-antes-de-maddie-desaparecer

[Vertigo Swirl]

If the McCanns are telling the truth Kate found an open window and shutters in Madeleine's bedroom and she was gone.

She thought the open window and shutters were evidence that someone had abducted her daughter. That's what she told her husband and friends; someone's taken Madeleine.

Gerry McCann then demonstrates that it wasn't necessary to be inside the bedroom to open the shutters and window, it could be done from outside.

If it was done from the outside another possible motive arises; burglary. With this possibility comes another explanation for the missing child. Awoken and scared, she might have run off.

Why was this possibility not considered?

Because there was no sign of her after 12 hours plus, and also because Kate felt certain (knowing her child better than anyone else) that she would not / could not have left the apartment in the way it was left.  If they thought burglary was a posssibilty then that puts a criminally minded individual in very close proximity to  their children, so it's hardly surprising that they believed a criminal act had befallen their daughter is it.

[Robittybob1]

If Kate's account of finding the window open, and assuming it wasn't open prior to her check, I would find it to be a reasonable assumption that whoever opened that window could be responsible for her disappearance. Unfortunately, there are no independent witnesses to corroborate that.

An alternative (aside from the notion that she invented that) is that someone attempting a burglary caused Madeleine to wake up and run out. But then, there's the issue of where from? Hardly from the source of where the noise was coming from, which would have left the balcony.

The so-called evidence that her fingerprints were in a window-opening position doesn't appear to exist. There's no such evidence in the files. Why Amaral and pals kept repeating this isn't clear.

Have you ever been woken by a noise?  I think it is possible to be woken without being aware from which direction the sound came from.  So I can see where the usual might not work "Hardly from the source of where the noise was coming from, which would have left the balcony" that logic is not guaranteed.

[Robittybob1]

Furthermore, the window was open according to at least one witness apart from Kate.  The child was not in the room when Kate did the 10pm check. The child WAS missing for 12 hours or more, according to numerous witnesses and the police.  So...

You have undermined all your arguments if you say Madeleine "was missing for 12 hours or more", and then claim that "they maybe telling the truth".  I can't see how you can have both of those ideas in the same theory.  Whaen are you timing the 12 hours from?  Is the prior to 10:00 PM or after 10:00 PM?

I think you need to outline your "theory" to stop us guessing as to what position you are arguing from.

[Robittybob1]

Who knows whether she is guilty or not ?
It's never been tested in court and  as far as casual  observers are concerned, it's all down to individual belief

You've got to have evidence before the court case commences.

[jassi]

You've got to have evidence before the court case commences.

Which in my opinion is why this case will never come to court.