UK Justice Forum 🇬🇧
Disappeared and Abducted Children and Young Adults => Madeleine McCann (3) disappeared from her parent's holiday apartment at Ocean Club, Praia da Luz, Portugal on 3 May 2007. No trace of her has ever been found. => Topic started by: barrier on September 13, 2020, 10:55:30 AM
-
What definitive and specific piece of evidence which is in the public domain allows one previous suspect/s to be any more innocent than the now new suspect?
Page 70
...(cf. Jónatas Machado, Freedom of Expression - Constitutional Dimensions, op. cit. pp. 566-7)
And let not be said, too, that the appellants were cleared by the order of filing the criminal proceedings.
-
Nothing. Therefore Robert Murat is no more innocent that Christian Bruckner. Sorted.
-
Nothing. Therefore Robert Murat is no more innocent that Christian Bruckner. Sorted.
So you agree that the new suspect it pure fantasy.
-
Seems he is going to be the scapegoat after all. as predicted.
is lawyer Friedrich Fulscher insists the prosecutor is wrong and Christian B isn't the man who abducted Madeleine, though he hasn't been shown the evidence against him.
In his spacious office, 2km from the prison, Mr Fulscher said: "I don't know any more after three months because I can't look in the prosecutor's files. He still hasn't told us anything. It isn't fair for him to keep accusing Christian B of killing the girl without telling us the evidence he has.
"There is a legal principle, that both sides have to have the same weapons. It's time for the prosecutor to show his cards, because he is prejudging my client in public without giving him the chance to go into action.
-
Time will tell if the Germans have it right when they charge him and put him before a court.
Until then it's just not worth bothering about. IMO
-
So you agree that the new suspect it pure fantasy.
How do you infer that from what I wrote? Clearly the new suspect exists unless you are saying he is some composite creation devised by HCW to fool the world?
-
Seems he is going to be the scapegoat after all. as predicted.
is lawyer Friedrich Fulscher insists the prosecutor is wrong and Christian B isn't the man who abducted Madeleine, though he hasn't been shown the evidence against him.
In his spacious office, 2km from the prison, Mr Fulscher said: "I don't know any more after three months because I can't look in the prosecutor's files. He still hasn't told us anything. It isn't fair for him to keep accusing Christian B of killing the girl without telling us the evidence he has.
"There is a legal principle, that both sides have to have the same weapons. It's time for the prosecutor to show his cards, because he is prejudging my client in public without giving him the chance to go into action.
A awful lot in the beginning was done through the media.But my question is what definitive evidence in the public domain that renders one suspect more innocent/ guilty than the other.
-
Time will tell if the Germans have it right when they charge him and put him before a court.
Until then it's just not worth bothering about. IMO
Quite wise, but it seems some sceptics are quite aerated about the latest developments and wish to convince us that it's all a farce / a conspiracy (delete as applicable) by opening threads like this one.
-
How do you infer that from what I wrote? Clearly the new suspect exists unless you are saying he is some composite creation devised by HCW to fool the world?
The McCanns existed as suspects previously,the SC ruled that let it be not said,they were cleared,so what definitive evidence in the public domain renders the new suspect any more culpable?
-
Time will tell if the Germans have it right when they charge him and put him before a court.
Until then it's just not worth bothering about. IMO
Spot on Jassi at the moment it all just seems to be Bluff.
-
A awful lot in the beginning was done through the media.But my question is what definitive evidence in the public domain that renders one suspect more innocent/ guilty than the other.
First of all define "suspects" as they currently stand.
-
What definitive and specific piece of evidence which is in the public domain allows one previous suspect/s to be any more innocent than the now new suspect?
Page 70
...(cf. Jónatas Machado, Freedom of Expression - Constitutional Dimensions, op. cit. pp. 566-7)
And let not be said, too, that the appellants were cleared by the order of filing the criminal proceedings.
No ones been cleared... There's lots of facts that make one suspect more likely than another.. Tjetes a fair bit that makes CB likely
-
No ones been cleared... There's lots of facts that make one suspect more likely than another.. Tjetes a fair bit that makes CB likely
Go on then,list them and how it makes him more culpable.
-
Go on then,list them and how it makes him more culpable.
I can't be bothered as you and other sceptics are so biased you won't accept the truth... Imo... We will know in a month or two
-
First of all define "suspects" as they currently stand.
There is a suspect,we know that, what is in the public domain that allows him to be more culpable than the McCann's who were not cleared of any involvement.
-
I can't be bothered as you and other sceptics are so biased you won't accept the truth... Imo... We will know in a month or two
Its you who are biased,list them,or is it a case of there's nowt.What specific point makes you so sure.
-
I can't be bothered as you and other sceptics are so biased you won't accept the truth... Imo... We will know in a month or two
Or 5 months.
-
Or 5 months.
Or never.
-
Or 5 months.
HCW has been quite clear... Even before todays article that we can expect something before the end of the year
-
HCW has been quite clear... Even before todays article that we can expect something before the end of the year
Christmas.
-
There is a suspect,we know that, what is in the public domain that allows him to be more culpable than the McCann's who were not cleared of any involvement.
Means, motive, opportunity.
-
Means, motive, opportunity.
Why do they apply to the new suspect anymore than the McCanns?
-
Why do they apply to the new suspect anymore than the McCanns?
Because stranger abduction is the only logical, plausible explanation for Madeleine’s disappearance and in 13 years no one has put forward a theory of parental involvement that came close to being plausible or logical. It would seems at least two highly respected police forces concur with that viewpoint as they appear to have completely ruled out parental involvement .
-
There is a suspect,we know that, what is in the public domain that allows him to be more culpable than the McCann's who were not cleared of any involvement.
Did you notice that the McCanns are no longer suspects? What is in the public domain that allows them not to be considered suspects or under investigation?
-
Question: what is the main difference between this thread and the one Kizzy started asking "Is there more circumstantial evidence against the McCanns than against CB?"
-
Its you who are biased,list them,or is it a case of there's nowt.What specific point makes you so sure.
Im more than happy for you to think theres nowt...but it doesnt make it true....Im happy to wait a couple of months..
I'd say I'm one of the most open minded memberes of the forum..I don't do bias....I do evidence
-
Its you who are biased,list them,or is it a case of there's nowt.What specific point makes you so sure.
I posted this this morning...its not one specific point...circumstantial evidence buildds a case.....a thin piece of twine is weak but when woven together with other peices makes a strong rope....thats how circumstantial evidence works...
My view and I think the view of the the professional investigators is..
We have a person with a history of burglary, paedophilia and sexual violence in the area that night......evidenced by the phone ping.
This person has been identified by a witness as the culprit. It doesnt matter that the witness satement MAY be unreliable...it still warrants investigation.
There is also the fact that he deregistered his car the day after....that he is recorded as fantasising about keeping a small child and abusing it over days.
This evidence in itself warrants regarding this person as a suspect but the investigators claim to have strong evidence that this man killed MM.
The suspect should have the right to explain why he should not be considered as a suspect.... explain where he was on the night...who he spoke to...why he deregistered his car. This information would totally rule the suspect out and he would no longer be associated with the case or under any suspicion.
I'm sure he will be given the opportunity to do this but his lawyer has suggested he will refuse to supply any of this information...why would that be ....why would he not want to clear himself.
Imagine the situation where the mccanns refused to give any details of their movements on the evening of may 3...what would that suggest.
Of course he has the right to silence but a court has the right to draw inference from that silence. There may well be enough evidence to take this case to trial. HCW is gathering that evidence IMO. Just like in the Gilroy case where Gilroy was unable to explain his actions and wherabouts ...the court can draw inference from CB's silence. That combined with other evidence that HCW has may be enough to convict...interesting times ahead
at the moment..plenty to rule CB in....little to rule him out...and thats due to his own actions
-
Because stranger abduction is the only logical, plausible explanation for Madeleine’s disappearance and in 13 years no one has put forward a theory of parental involvement that came close to being plausible or logical. It would seems at least two highly respected police forces concur with that viewpoint as they appear to have completely ruled out parental involvement .
Because its the only logical plausible explanation? what makes you so sure.
-
Question: what is the main difference between this thread and the one Kizzy started asking "Is there more circumstantial evidence against the McCanns than against CB?"
Kizzy is asking for circumstantial I'm asking what definitive evidence in the public domain makes the new suspect anymore culpable than the Mccanns? what definitive piece of evidence makes a supporter know the McCanns didn't do it?
-
Because its the only logical plausible explanation? what makes you so sure.
13 years of waiting for someone, anyone to describe a plausible, logical theory of parental involvement. Can you do it? If so PM me, I'd love to hear it!
-
13 years of waiting for someone, anyone to describe a plausible, logical theory of parental involvement. Can you do it? If so PM me, I'd love to hear it!
No thanks.
-
Kizzy is asking for circumstantial I'm asking what definitive evidence in the public domain makes the new suspect anymore culpable than the Mccanns? what definitive piece of evidence makes a supporter know the McCanns didn't do it?
You know full well there is nothing in the public domain so why ask?
-
Kizzy is asking for circumstantial I'm asking what definitive evidence in the public domain makes the new suspect anymore culpable than the Mccanns? what definitive piece of evidence makes a supporter know the McCanns didn't do it?
gilroy was found guilty of murder based on circumstantial evidence...
-
No thanks.
I didn't expect you would for a moment, for the simple reason - you don't have one.
-
Question: what is the main difference between this thread and the one Kizzy started asking "Is there more circumstantial evidence against the McCanns than against CB?"
Yes there is imo
-
Yes there is imo
Can you explain the differences please, cos they seem to serve the same purposes to me.
-
Yes there is imo
Eh?
-
Can you explain the differences please, cos they seem to serve the same purposes to me.
IMO there is more on the mccs ....CB I believe doesnt even come close.
-
IMO there is more on the mccs ....CB I believe doesnt even come close.
Yes you have loads... But it's all tripe imo..
If a tenth of it was true the McCanns would be arrested... So sceptics have to make up a conspiracy that the McCanns are being protected by the Illuminati
-
Yes you have loads... But it's all tripe imo..
If a tenth of it was true the McCanns would be arrested... So sceptics have to make up a conspiracy that the McCanns are being protected by the Illuminati
You think they have been proved innocent .....so what are you so worried about.
Why is it your mission in life to try and discredit everything and the poster who thinks they are involved in Maddie's disappearance.?
-
Intriguing ... but what on earth does it mean?
Exactly what does the 'V' in the title signify one puzzles apart from preposterous misuse of an apostrophe.
-
Could you try and stick t o facts not tripe.. I've. never claimed they've been proven innocent..
What do you know about my mission in life.. More tripe
I have to agree with that comment.
It would be good practice for members to desist from posting opinionated, personal comments aimed at other members they really know nothing about. I'm sure that somewhere it must be against forum rules. Short of the institution of draconian moderation and modification which I am sure no-one really wants, I am afraid we will just have to hope for a modicum of self regulation and good manners to be adopted :)
-
I have to agree with that comment.
It would be good practice for members to desist from posting opinionated, personal comments aimed at other members they really know nothing about. I'm sure that somewhere it must be against forum rules. Short of the institution of draconian moderation and modification which I am sure no-one really wants, I am afraid we will just have to hope for a modicum of self regulation and good manners to be adopted :)
Intriguing ... but what on earth does it mean?
Exactly what does the 'V' in the title signify one puzzles apart from preposterous misuse of an apostrophe.
-
My comments are not direscted at kizzy personally..they are directed at what she posts. kizzy's commnets are directed at me personally..I dont really mind because its mostly tripe...but it is best if we try and avoid personal commnents and stick to criticising whats posted.
-
Quote from: Brietta on Today at 04:32:41 PM
I have to agree with that comment.
It would be good practice for members to desist from posting opinionated, personal comments aimed at other members they really know nothing about. I'm sure that somewhere it must be against forum rules. Short of the institution of draconian moderation and modification which I am sure no-one really wants, I am afraid we will just have to hope for a modicum of self regulation and good manners to be adopted :)
Quote from: Brietta on Today at 03:54:15 PM
Intriguing ... but what on earth does it mean?
Exactly what does the 'V' in the title signify one puzzles apart from preposterous misuse of an apostrophe.
Yes I know what I posted.
Are you trying to say something. In the interest of freedom of speech might I encourage you by saying "Please do."
-
Yes I know what I posted.
Are you trying to say something. In the interest of freedom of speech might I encourage you by saying "Please do."
I agree that you should develop a modicum of self-regulation and adopt good manners. In the interest of freedom of speech, of course.
-
And they both unfortunately for them met their match ..plus...on this forum
-
And they both unfortunately for them met their match ..plus...on this forum
Met my match? Where?
-
And they both unfortunately for them met their match ..plus...on this forum
Indeed.
-
Met my match? Where?
in your opinion... as I explained to you.. I am going to launch a private criminal prosecution without any professional help...how many armchair lawyers on this or any other forum would consider doing that.
-
Met my match? Where?
what was that about adopting a degree of self-regulation and adopting good manners? Obviously not applicable to The General.
-
in your opinion... as I explained to you.. I am going to launch a private criminal prosecution without any professional help...how many armchair lawyers on this or any other forum would consider doing that.
Alice died, I believe.
I personally successfully argued that I'd been mis-sold an obscure insurance called 'PPI' and received over £400 in compensation. So yeah, there's at least one.
-
Alice died, I believe.
I personally successfully argued that I'd been mis-sold an obscure insurance called 'PPI' and received over £400 in compensation. So yeah, there's at least one.
That's the difference between us... I could see PPI was a total con and never bought any..
-
Please remember to post something related to the thread title.
-
That's the difference between us... I could see PPI was a total con and never bought any..
There's no shame in being temporarily hoodwinked by a deceptively adept employee / thief, or, in my case, a silver-tongued insurance salesman, hawking misleading cover for my fully restored 1966 Triumph T120 (with a copy of the original sales invoice and TOMCC Dating Certificate). If I knew then, what I know now, then I certainly would have researched a little more before signing the cheque for £120. Although, given that it was nearly a decade ago, I think you would struggle to achieve such a significant mark up on my (albeit unwitting) investment, even in a high yield, locked in savings ISA - so who's laughing now? Not me, I can tell you, not me. No......me. I'm laughing now, not you!
I wonder if either of the two would-be, but probably wouldn't be protagonists - Brueckner or The McCann's, have invested in a high yield, long term ISA or similar?
-
There's no shame in being temporarily hoodwinked by a deceptively adept employee / thief, or, in my case, a silver-tongued insurance salesman, hawking misleading cover for my fully restored 1966 Triumph T120 (with a copy of the original sales invoice and TOMCC Dating Certificate). If I knew then, what I know now, then I certainly would have researched a little more before signing the cheque for £120. Although, given that it was nearly a decade ago, I think you would struggle to achieve such a significant mark up on my (albeit unwitting) investment, even in a high yield, locked in savings ISA - so who's laughing now? Not me, I can tell you, not me. No......me. I'm laughing now, not you!
I wonder of either of the two would-be, but probably wouldn't be protagonists - Brueckner or The McCann's, have invested in a high yield, long term ISA or similar?
”Please remember to post something related to the thread title.” - G-Unit
-
”Please remember to post something related to the thread title.” - G-Unit
The thread title is not G-Unit....its Re: Brueckner V McCann's
Seems like another Raymont H stunt of the burnt letter,
Notes left at the resort in Praia da Luz a year later and sent to a Dutch newspaper are said to identify the vast area of water as Maddie’s “final resting place”.
Brit Kit Thackeray has lived next to the reservoir for more than 30 years. He said: “There were Germans living in campers all around here in the early 2000s. He could be anywhere now
-
The thread title is not G-Unit....its Re: Brueckner V McCann's
Seems like another Raymont H stunt of the burnt letter,
Notes left at the resort in Praia da Luz a year later and sent to a Dutch newspaper are said to identify the vast area of water as Maddie’s “final resting place”.
Brit Kit Thackeray has lived next to the reservoir for more than 30 years. He said: “There were Germans living in campers all around here in the early 2000s. He could be anywhere now
Who wrote the notes?
-
Who wrote the notes?
https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/madeleine-mccann-cops-hunting-second-22676764
-
Who wrote the notes?
Hi Erngath, here is one reference.
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/scrubland-search-for-madeleine-called-off-6590200.html