Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?

[Mr Gray]

What you know is immaterial legally if you can't prove it (as you seem to have discovered). You would risk being sued if you publicly stated that X was a thief. If CB is charged and tried, it can be argued that his trial is unfair because the prosecutor declared him guilty before he was arrested.

You are missing the point.. I would be happy to be sued... You seem to have forgotten all you knew about libel laws... And you are forming an opinion without knowing what evidence I have.
As for CB and his POI.. imo it would depend on how strong the evidence was. Could the same argument be made for the Greek suspect.. No... Because the evidence is si strong

[Venturi Swirl]

Oh?  Why not?  Isn’t publicly accusing named individuals of carrying out a serious crime exactly what private citizen Gonalo Amaral did, and aren’t you convinced he was perfectly entitled to do so?  So kindly explain why he can and Davel can’t.

bumping for G-Unit.

[Venturi Swirl]

What you know is immaterial legally if you can't prove it (as you seem to have discovered). You would risk being sued if you publicly stated that X was a thief. If CB is charged and tried, it can be argued that his trial is unfair because the prosecutor declared him guilty before he was arrested.

Did Amaral prove the McCanns hid Madeleine’s body?

[Venturi Swirl]

Looks like I've finally made it onto G-Unit's "Ignore" list. 

[Mr Gray]

This is what Harrison, the UK's national search advisor, recommended;

Deploy the EVRD to search the house and garden to ensure Madeleine McCann's remains are not present. The dog may also indicate if a body has been stored in the recent past and then moved off the property, though this is not evidential merely intelligence.
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARK_HARRISON.htm

Most of the arguments have focussed on the difference between 'evidential' and 'merely intelligence'. Those who wish to dismiss the dog alerts have concentrated on emphasising that alerts such as the ones to the McCann's clothes are not evidential. The argument is that they can therefore be ignored.

I argue that those alerts are still useful. Intelligence isn't something that can or should be ignored and what the alerts to the clothing tell us is that they are contaminated by the target scent. That needs to be accepted and explained.

Ive just noticed this and it needs a response. The alert to the clothes does not mean they are contaminated by target scent .. Your claim that this is a fact is wrong.

[G-Unit]

bumping for G-Unit.

I'm not interested in arguing about McCann v Amaral, I'm discussing the likelyhood of Wolters breaching Brueckner's human rights.

[Mr Gray]

I'm not interested in arguing about McCann v Amaral, I'm discussing the likelyhood of Wolters breaching Brueckner's human rights.

Its.been settled... You think he does havve a case... I think he doesnt.

[Robittybob1]

Why do you think I can't ..... You are quite wrong

What I'm pointing out is its possible to have proof of guilt but not be able to take it to court

"Can" or "can't"?

[Venturi Swirl]

I'm not interested in arguing about McCann v Amaral, I'm discussing the likelyhood of Wolters breaching Brueckner's human rights.

I'm really not surprised you don't want to talk about Amaral breaching the McCanns' human rights whilst at the same time making the identical same case for Bruckner against Wolters.  it's because your position is IMO entirely contradictory. 

[G-Unit]

I'm really not surprised you don't want to talk about Amaral breaching the McCanns' human rights whilst at the same time making the identical same case for Bruckner against Wolters.  it's because your position is IMO entirely contradictory.

Amaral was not a public official, but Wolters is, and that's an important difference.

[Venturi Swirl]

Amaral was not a public official, but Wolters is, and that's an important difference.

Then as Davel is also not a public official why did you write this to him?

"You must surely realise that you can't publicly name this person and state that they are a thief?"

Either as a private citizen like Amaral (and Davel) you can't (as you have stated above) or you can (as you have also suggested above!)  See the problem now?

[Mr Gray]

The point im making is Wolters may have evidence that proves beyond doubt CBs guilt but not evidence that he can guarantee a conviction... Which is what  I have in my case so I know its possible

[G-Unit]

Then as Davel is also not a public official why did you write this to him?

"You must surely realise that you can't publicly name this person and state that they are a thief?"

Either as a private citizen like Amaral (and Davel) you can't (as you have stated above) or you can (as you have also suggested above!)  See the problem now?

There's a difference between Amaral and Davel too. Amaral's opinion was based on facts recorded in the PJ files and publicly available. I don't know what Davel's opinion is based on.

[Mr Gray]

There's a difference between Amaral and Davel too. Amaral's opinion was based on facts recorded in the PJ files and publicly available. I don't know what Davel's opinion is based on.

Amarals opinion was not based on facts..
The point im making is its possible to know for certain someone is guilty but not be able to orove it in a court of law... That is a fact.... And perhaps that applies to Wolters

[Mr Gray]

My opinion..

Wolters may have evifence that proved CB murdered Maddie... But this evidence is not certain to be enough to convict. Wolters wants as strong a case as possible to ensre a guilty verdict. He is in no rush.. CB is going nowhere. In Germany it's  customary according to Wolters not to charge until shortly before a trial... Thats why everything Wolters has daid makrs sense imo and he has not contraficted himself once