Have we learned anything new after almost 16 years?

[Venturi Swirl]

Me too. I also never thought that Jane Tanner's sighting was evidence of abduction.

Why not?  You think MS statement is evidence of parental involvement don’t you?

[Wonderfulspam]

they disagreed of its significance.  If it had no significance then it had no relevance, don’t make out that the  two witnesses were in agreement about DP and his actions because they werent.  Was a time on this forum when we weren’t even allowed to reference those statements if I recall correctly , any idea why this has changed?

But they were in agreement. Both agreed that David made a particular gesture. It's open to interpretation  & seeing as though it's recorded in evidence I really don't see the problem with discussing the matter.
Why would you rather we weren't allowed?

[Wonderfulspam]

And perfectly explicable to anyone with half a braincell.

Really? I find it rather strange that the BKA have definitive evidence Madeleine was murdered by Brueckner, but have neither shared it with the McCanns nor ever even interviewed them. There is no contact between the McCanns & Wolters. Can you conjure an excuse for why not?

[Wonderfulspam]

Why not?  You think MS statement is evidence of parental involvement don’t you?

It can quite easily be interpreted as such, yes. It would account for all the inconsistencies, why the McCanns never promoted the Smith sighting & why the police still can't find the abductor after 16 years.

[Brietta]

But they were in agreement. Both agreed that David made a particular gesture. It's open to interpretation  & seeing as though it's recorded in evidence I really don't see the problem with discussing the matter.
Why would you rather we weren't allowed?

Please observe forum rules particularly the one about libel.

[Wonderfulspam]

Please observe forum rules particularly the one about libel.

OK. No more discussion about Dr Payne & the Smith sighting. Let's get back to discussing the concrete evidence against Christian Brueckner. There's plenty to talk about there.

[G-Unit]

Why not?  You think MS statement is evidence of parental involvement don’t you?

Do I?

[Venturi Swirl]

Do I?

Question 1). is Martin Smith’s statement evidence in your view?
Question 2) If so what theory does his evidence tend to support in your view?

So, yes I would say you most certainly do, I’m amazed you would even attempt to deny it.

[G-Unit]

Question 1). is Martin Smith’s statement evidence in your view?
Question 2) If so what theory does his evidence tend to support in your view?

So, yes I would say you most certainly do, I’m amazed you would even attempt to deny it.

Just carry on believing yourself then. You will anyway, no matter what I say because you're so clever, aren't you?

[Venturi Swirl]

Just carry on believing yourself then. You will anyway, no matter what I say because you're so clever, aren't you?

Why are you unable to answer the questions?   Is Martin Smith’s statement evidence, and if so which theory does it support?  It has nothing to do with me being clever, it’s just two very simple questions that for some inexplicable reason you can’t face up to. 

[Wonderfulspam]

Why are you unable to answer the questions?   Is Martin Smith’s statement evidence, and if so which theory does it support?  It has nothing to do with me being clever, it’s just two very simple questions that for some inexplicable reason you can’t face up to.

Why does it matter to you, what G does or doesn't believe?

[Venturi Swirl]

Let’s try it another way.  In the highly unlikely event that Gerry McCann ends up in the dock accused of hiding his daughter’s body would the Smith statement be heard as evidence in court, and if so would it be for the prosecution or the defence?  I wonder if anyone can answer this question?

[Brietta]

Let’s try it another way.  In the highly unlikely event that Gerry McCann ends up in the dock accused of hiding his daughter’s body would the Smith statement be heard as evidence in court, and if so would it be for the prosecution or the defence?  I wonder if anyone can answer this question?

It is all down to corroboration.

My opinion is that none of it could be entered in evidence in the first instance - so the situation would never arise.

[Wonderfulspam]

A judge would have to decide what could or couldn't be entered into evidence. But the statute of limitations has expired anyway. The McCanns will never be charged with anything. But if I were Brueckner's attorney, I'd be calling Smith as a witness in his defence. But then it's not looking much like Brueckner will ever be charged either.

[Eleanor]

Why do some people find it so hard to understand the difference between what is admissible and what isn't?

Most of the supposed evidence which is argued on this Board is inadmissible.  This means that it isn't relevant or is too easy to refute.