Maddie cops seek yet more cash

[Wonderfulspam]

Ultimately the Rebelo investigation was sound.

Proof of that is I believe, that very many of the events noted in the files were only collated when he took over the job after Amaral's sacking from the case and his demotion.

Brueckner IS the murderer. These events you speak of were very clearly a load of bogus leads that lead to nothing, as none of them implicate the murderer.

[G-Unit]

Some of those "opinions" have resulted in tabloids paying out a lot of money in libel damages.

I don't think they were convicted and ordered to pay by the courts, so they paid out a lot of money because in their 'opinions' they would lose any such case.

[Venturi Swirl]

I don't think they were convicted and ordered to pay by the courts, so they paid out a lot of money because in their 'opinions' they would lose any such case.

yes because they knew they'd been caught bang to rights, just as Fox News has been shown to have lied resulting in a hasty out of court settlement with Dominion.   So what is your point exactly?

[Brietta]

I think it was described as insufficient evidence, not no evidence.

insufficient
ADJECTIVE
not enough; inadequate:
"there was insufficient evidence to convict him"
SIMILAR: inadequate deficient poor scant scanty scarce sparse short in short supply at a premium lacking wanting paltry meagre niggardly skimpy sketchy incomplete restricted limited exiguous not enough too little too few too small

There was NO evidence arising from dog interlligence

There was NO forensic evidence

There was NO circumstantial evidence

In effect there was NO evidence to validate the Amaral investigation's suspiciions.

Civilised societies do not conduct criminal proceedings of any kind under such circumstances.  The kangaroo court of the internet can do very much whatever it feels like and who gives a tinker's curse about the impotence of that.

Quite simply - internet sceptics have failed in their prime objective of curtailing the funding of the investigation of Madeleine's case.  And that is a very good thing as proceedings are under way to bring justice to victims of other crimes too many years after the crimes were committed, as a direct result.

[Brietta]

I already answered it. Brueckner isn't being charged. But supporters are trapped by the concrete evidence now, because to doubt the official spokesman for the BKA would be insane.

What's your rush.

There are five court cases pending against Brueckner and neither he or his legal team seem to be in a rush to proceed with any of them.

[G-Unit]

insufficient
ADJECTIVE
not enough; inadequate:
"there was insufficient evidence to convict him"
SIMILAR: inadequate deficient poor scant scanty scarce sparse short in short supply at a premium lacking wanting paltry meagre niggardly skimpy sketchy incomplete restricted limited exiguous not enough too little too few too small

There was NO evidence arising from dog interlligence

There was NO forensic evidence

There was NO circumstantial evidence

In effect there was NO evidence to validate the Amaral investigation's suspiciions.

Civilised societies do not conduct criminal proceedings of any kind under such circumstances.  The kangaroo court of the internet can do very much whatever it feels like and who gives a tinker's curse about the impotence of that.

Quite simply - internet sceptics have failed in their prime objective of curtailing the funding of the investigation of Madeleine's case.  And that is a very good thing as proceedings are under way to bring justice to victims of other crimes too many years after the crimes were committed, as a direct result.

Portugal's attorney general said there was insufficient evidence to continue the police case.
https://www.nowtolove.com.au/parenting/family/madeleine-mccann-parents-guilty-54748

[Brietta]

I thought it was described as a lack of evidence - same term as used for Robert Murat wasn't it?

Nobody gets indicted for anything in any jurisdiction if the evidence to do so is lacking.

[Brietta]

I don't think they were convicted and ordered to pay by the courts, so they paid out a lot of money because in their 'opinions' they would lose any such case.

They have legal advisors who unlike you know what the law is.

[Venturi Swirl]

They have legal advisors who unlike you know what the law is.

There is a school of sceptic thought that the papers printed the truth but simply couldn't be arsed to defend themselves in court so decided to settle out of court and give lots of money to the criminal parents and their friends instead 

[Wonderfulspam]

What's your rush.

There are five court cases pending against Brueckner and neither he or his legal team seem to be in a rush to proceed with any of them.

Brueckner has challenged Wolters to 'put up or shut up', in the Maddie case.

So he's either bluffing, or, he simply didn't do it.

I'll help you out. He's innocent. Wolters doesn't have anything, & that's why he isn't being charged.

[Wonderfulspam]

Nobody gets indicted for anything in any jurisdiction if the evidence to do so is lacking.

Yes. That's why there's still no charges for Brueckner, nothing at all to do with Wolters work load.

[Brietta]

Portugal's attorney general said there was insufficient evidence to continue the police case.
https://www.nowtolove.com.au/parenting/family/madeleine-mccann-parents-guilty-54748

I have asked it before and I ask it again ~ "Do you ever actually read the cites you post"  I ask for the simple reason that I think if you did, you would chose better ones.

"Portugese police discovered two DNA samples in the McCanns' hire car - one of which was a "100 per cent match" to Madeleine - were reportedly the type that had come directly from her body, not from clothes she had worn."
https://www.nowtolove.com.au/parenting/family/madeleine-mccann-parents-guilty-54748

Quite simply put that is a lie.

It was a lie at the time.

It is lie now over 16 years after the event.  It is also the lie that Sandra Felgueiras objected to being told in the midst of the enormous propaganda campaign mounted against the McCanns and she believed it.  It remains the same lie  that it was in 2007 whenever and wherever it appears in the present day.
I think it was probably the lie which was going to be used to convict the McCanns - and there it pops up in the cite provided by you in 2023.

[Mr Gray]

Portugal's attorney general said there was insufficient evidence to continue the police case.
https://www.nowtolove.com.au/parenting/family/madeleine-mccann-parents-guilty-54748

your cite also contains

 July 2008, the McCanns were formally cleared as suspects by a Portugese court and no longer named as "arguidos" in the case.

[Brietta]

your cite also contains

 July 2008, the McCanns were formally cleared as suspects by a Portugese court and no longer named as "arguidos" in the case.

Life is too short and I'm not going to trawl for cites because there are plenty to be found by anyone who wants to check it out for themselves.  The absolute consensus in the Portuguese press is that the McCanns and Murat were exonerated in 2008.