Have we learned anything new after almost 16 years?

[Venturi Swirl]

Well at least we appear to have established that Martin Smith's statement is not evidence of Gerry McCann's involvement in Madeleine's disappearance, let's hope we never have to discuss it again as clearly it is of no significance whatsoever... 

[Eleanor]

Well at least we appear to have established that Martin Smith's statement is not evidence of Gerry McCann's involvement in Madeleine's disappearance, let's hope we never have to discuss it again as clearly it is of no significance whatsoever... 

Give it five.  It will be back.

[Wonderfulspam]

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.

You're the arbiter of admissibility now are You?

[Wonderfulspam]

Well at least we appear to have established that Martin Smith's statement is not evidence of Gerry McCann's involvement in Madeleine's disappearance, let's hope we never have to discuss it again as clearly it is of no significance whatsoever... 

Well. You might think so, but I disagree. Smith is a witness. The McCanns are witnesses. I don't see why the McCanns should be able to give evidence but Smith cannot.

[Venturi Swirl]

Give it five.  It will be back.

It means that sceptics' suspicions are not based on any evidence per se, just on...what?  The fact that they don't like the look of the McCanns??  The fact that Gerry said back door when he meant front door or that he was sat next to someone on holiday who made a rude gesture?  And these suspicions are somehow more compelling than everything we know about the official suspect CB?  It's truly laughable.

[Wonderfulspam]

It means that sceptics' suspicions are not based on any evidence per se, just on...what?  The fact that they don't like the look of the McCanns??  The fact that Gerry said back door when he meant front door or that he was sat next to someone on holiday who made a rude gesture?  And these suspicions are somehow more compelling than everything we know about the official suspect CB?  It's truly laughable.

What evidence against Brueckner do you find compelling?

[Wonderfulspam]

That's the question for the day. I've made it quite clear what evidence convinces me the McCanns did it. Now let's balance things & make a list of all the compelling evidence that Madeleine was taken in a criminal act by Christian Brueckner.

[faithlilly]

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.

It really would have been better if the parents had been tried in a court of law. At least if found not guilty they would not have this shroud of guilt hanging over them to this day.

[Wonderfulspam]

It really would have been better if the parents had been tried in a court of law. At least if found not guilty they would not have this shroud of guilt hanging over them to this day.

Insufficient evidence. It couldn't be established which crime , if any, had been committed. When Smith had his epiphany the McCanns were back home, & they weren't in any hurry to return to Portugal & have another chat with the police. Oh well. Things have moved on since then. The three expert investigative forces have found evidence which exonerates the McCanns & heavily implicates Christian Brueckner.

[Venturi Swirl]

It really would have been better if the parents had been tried in a court of law. At least if found not guilty they would not have this shroud of guilt hanging over them to this day.

LOL @"Shroud Of Guilt"  - that is merely a figment of your imagination.  And double LOL at your rationale that the dwindling number of people who are still convinced they are guilty (ie, you, G-Unit and the troll) would think any different if they HAD been found not guilty.  Be honest now, fgs.

[kizzy]

Did any Legal Charges ever come of this?  No?  Why ever not?

There isnt enough evidence .......not no evidence.

Never say never.... [althought you didnt say never in your post]

[kizzy]

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?

Wonder why Jim Gamble suspected gmcc at first.............why he would come to that conclusion.

[Venturi Swirl]

Wonder why Jim Gamble suspected gmcc at first.............why he would come to that conclusion.

why don't you ask him?  I believe he is quite approachable.  Actually no need, he already gave his reason:

His initial suspicion was based on his experience as a cop, as “statistically it's likely to be the parents or somebody who's in close proximity with the child”.

[faithlilly]

Insufficient evidence. It couldn't be established which crime , if any, had been committed. When Smith had his epiphany the McCanns were back home, & they weren't in any hurry to return to Portugal & have another chat with the police. Oh well. Things have moved on since then. The three expert investigative forces have found evidence which exonerates the McCanns & heavily implicates Christian Brueckner.

Righty-ho.

I’ll await further developments with baited breath.

[Miss Taken Identity]

You're the arbiter of admissibility now are You?

well someone has to be...

So we all agree CB did it? that would be irrefutable evidence  yes? no?