Maddie cops seek yet more cash

[Mr Gray]

So as you are on about evidence ...notice there was a lack of evidence ...not no evidence.

The case was archived ....not closed.


The 76-page ruling read; “It should not be said that the appellants were cleared via the ruling announcing the archiving of the criminal case.”

It goes on to say it would be wrong to draw any inferences about the couple’s guilt or innocence from their decision.

But it notes the case was shelved not because prosecutors believed Kate and Gerry were innocent, but due to a lack of evidence.

Lack of evidence can mean no evidence. In the case of the McCann's Pedro da carmo said no evidence.
Do you think there's any evidence against CB

[Wonderfulspam]

Lack of evidence can mean no evidence. In the case of the McCann's Pedro da carmo said no evidence.
Do you think there's any evidence against CB

Pedro da Carmo was clearly mistaken, because Martin Smith was 60 to 80% sure he saw Mr McCann.
If that isn't evidence then, what is it?

And yes, there is also evidence against CB. He told his mates he murdered Maddie & destroyed the evidence.

[Vertigo Swirl]

The point you have sidestepped is that neither the McCanns or Murat were ever charged with any offences making McCann, McCann and Murat as white as the driven snow as far as the law was concerned.


Not as white as what you seem to think.


About 3,400,000 results (0.54 seconds)
Now, Portugal's Supreme Court has ruled that neither parent has formally been proved innocent for Maddie's disappearance, and can't be assumed to be so. The couple were ruled out as 'arguidos' (formal suspects) in 2008, but judges have stressed that this does not equate to a ruling of innocence.

If the McCanns haven't been cleared they have certainly been ruled out of the current investigation.  What's the difference?

[barrier]

Lack of evidence can mean no evidence. In the case of the McCann's Pedro da carmo said no evidence.
Do you think there's any evidence against CB

So if the BKA declare they wont continue because of lack of evidence it could be taken to mean no evidence.

[G-Unit]

The point you have sidestepped is that neither the McCanns or Murat were ever charged with any offences making McCann, McCann and Murat as white as the driven snow as far as the law was concerned. 

In Amaral's case when he went through the process of being an arguido, there was evidence to enable charges to be brought against him.  He was tried and convicted.  His appeal against conviction was not upheld.  Making him a convicted criminal.

The subtle nuance for Brueckner is that he is already a convicted criminal serving time.  He has been charged with five other crimes which will be tried when a jurisdiction is decided.  He remains arguido in Madeleine's case and will be charged or not depending on the evidence.

No rush though.  He's got five other trials to work his way through and at present delay seems to be suiting the defence case.

Oh not forgetting that funding for the continuance of the SY investigation of Madeleine's case doesn't appear to be a problem.

People without criminal records can commit crimes. People with criminal records can't be assumed to be guilty of other crimes. In both cases it's evidence which matters, not reputation.

[kizzy]

If the McCanns haven't been cleared they have certainly been ruled out of the current investigation.  What's the difference?

They are not immune from being charged - seems they just need more evidence.


Just the same as CB.

[Vertigo Swirl]

They are not immune from being charged - seems they just need more evidence.


Just the same as CB.

You've avoided the question.  What is the difference between "being cleared" and "being ruled out"?  Apparently the McCanns have been ruled out of the current investigation but sceptics are still insistent that they haven't been cleared. They won't be charged (unless one or both of them suddenly decide to confess) because no one is investigating them or trying to build a case against them because they are not considered suspects in their child's disappearance. 

[kizzy]

You've avoided the question.  What is the difference between "being cleared" and "being ruled out"?  Apparently the McCanns have been ruled out of the current investigation but sceptics are still insistent that they haven't been cleared. They won't be charged (unless one or both of them suddenly decide to confess) because no one is investigating them or trying to build a case against them because they are not considered suspects in their child's disappearance.

Doubt the mccs would ever confess.

There are 7 more though who could change their minds.

There again though seems careers come first ...

[jassi]

Doubt the mccs would ever confess.

There are 7 more though who could change their minds.

There again though seems careers come first ...

Why would anyone confess ? Its obvious that whoever was involved has no conscience or moral values

[Mr Gray]

People without criminal records can commit crimes. People with criminal records can't be assumed to be guilty of other crimes. In both cases it's evidence which matters, not reputation.

Stating the obvious. we know all the evidence against the McCanns...its in the public domain. We dont know what the concrete evidence isagainst CB

[Vertigo Swirl]

Doubt the mccs would ever confess.

There are 7 more though who could change their minds.

There again though seems careers come first ...

Of course they won’t confess, they didn’t do it!  But once again you avoided the question.  I wonder why….

[Mr Gray]

They are not immune from being charged - seems they just need more evidence.


Just the same as CB.

Do you understand whats meant by the statute of limitation

[Mr Gray]

Doubt the mccs would ever confess.

There are 7 more though who could change their minds.

There again though seems careers come first ...

Presumption of guilt..lol

[Brietta]

People without criminal records can commit crimes. People with criminal records can't be assumed to be guilty of other crimes. In both cases it's evidence which matters, not reputation.

People who have criminal records which includes sexual interference with children are included in a register recording such crimes and are investigated as a matter of course should a child protection incident arise.  For example a missing child.

Do you really not know this.

What sort of reputation do you suppose a convicted paedophile enjoys.

[Vertigo Swirl]

People without criminal records can commit crimes. People with criminal records can't be assumed to be guilty of other crimes. In both cases it's evidence which matters, not reputation.

Based on everything you know about CB and the evidence against him would you have ruled him out of this case by now?