Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB

[Wonderfulspam]

It is a bit chilling that in a small resort town specifically advertised to unsuspecting families as being "child friendly" you think there may have been six hundred paedophiles "probably as vile as Brueckner" wandering around.

But the thread which you started - Is there more circumstantial  evidence against the mccanns than there is CB - just doesn't take the presence of that number of perverts into consideration.

You are defending Brueckner's human rights while for thirteen+ years denying the McCanns theirs by making comparison with innocent parents and a rapist and paedophile which is what Brueckner is.

What is your justification for doing that?   Why would anyone think it appropriate to do that?

I haven't seen any proof they didn't.

[kizzy]

It is a bit chilling that in a small resort town specifically advertised to unsuspecting families as being "child friendly" you think there may have been six hundred paedophiles "probably as vile as Brueckner" wandering around.

But the thread which you started - Is there more circumstantial  evidence against the mccanns than there is CB - just doesn't take the presence of that number of perverts into consideration.

You are defending Brueckner's human rights while for thirteen+ years denying the McCanns theirs by making comparison with innocent parents and a rapist and paedophile which is what Brueckner is.

What is your justification for doing that?   Why would anyone think it appropriate to do that?

Why IMO are your posts so dramatic and seeing things what are not there.

I have no interest in CB humane rights whatsoever or defending him in any way ..they are your words not mine......

I do not believe the mccs abduction senario so why would  I believe CB is the abducter.

As for Justification B, the day I have to explaine myself to you is the day I will give up.

[Vertigo Swirl]

I haven't seen any proof they didn't.

I haven’t seen any proof CB didn’t do it so that must mean he dunnit too. 

[G-Unit]

It is a bit chilling that in a small resort town specifically advertised to unsuspecting families as being "child friendly" you think there may have been six hundred paedophiles "probably as vile as Brueckner" wandering around.

But the thread which you started - Is there more circumstantial  evidence against the mccanns than there is CB - just doesn't take the presence of that number of perverts into consideration.

You are defending Brueckner's human rights while for thirteen+ years denying the McCanns theirs by making comparison with innocent parents and a rapist and paedophile which is what Brueckner is.

What is your justification for doing that?   Why would anyone think it appropriate to do that?

Was Luz advertised as child friendly? By whom? Does that mean parents can take their children there and forget all the child protection measures they take at home, like locking doors and hiring baby sitters?

People's pasts can predict future behaviour, but not always. The case of Dr Miles Bradbury shows that. In the end it's evidence which convicts a criminal, not his or her CV.

Once again you are questioning the actions and beliefs of another member because you believe you're right and they're wrong. Even if you are, that doesn't give you the right to judge others and find them wanting.

[Vertigo Swirl]

Was Luz advertised as child friendly? By whom? Does that mean parents can take their children there and forget all the child protection measures they take at home, like locking doors and hiring baby sitters?

People's pasts can predict future behaviour, but not always. The case of Dr Miles Bradbury shows that. In the end it's evidence which convicts a criminal, not his or her CV.

Once again you are questioning the actions and beliefs of another member because you believe you're right and they're wrong. Even if you are, that doesn't give you the right to judge others and find them wanting.

Oh what supreeeeeeme irony your last sentence is.  How about telling that to every person on here who has slated the McCanns including yourself?  Nah, didn’t think that would appeal to you.

[Mr Gray]

Why IMO are your posts so dramatic and seeing things what are not there.

I have no interest in CB humane rights whatsoever or defending him in any way ..they are your words not mine......

I do not believe the mccs abduction senario so why would  I believe CB is the abducter.

As for Justification B, the day I have to explaine myself to you is the day I will give up.

So you are confirming you can't consider CB as a suspect because your mind is totally convinced the parents are guilty....even though there is no real evidence they are

[G-Unit]

Oh what supreeeeeeme irony your last sentence is.  How about telling that to every person on here who has slated the McCanns including yourself?  Nah, didn’t think that would appeal to you.

Is not believing the McCanns 'slating' them?

[Wonderfulspam]

I haven’t seen any proof CB didn’t do it so that must mean he dunnit too.

Why would Brueckner want to abduct a dead body?

[Eleanor]

Why would Brueckner want to abduct a dead body?

His DNA.

[Vertigo Swirl]

Is not believing the McCanns 'slating' them?

well yes, because it means you think they are liars, but it’s not just that is it?  They are judged by you and others to be terrible parents, remember?

[Vertigo Swirl]

Why would Brueckner want to abduct a dead body?

Where did I say he abducted a dead body?

[Robittybob1]

I remember in the beginning when someone said that there were loads of Paedophiles wandering around Praia da Luz.
I thought that this was really funny and decidedly not possible.  It now seems that it could have been correct.

Who will ever know?

There'll be one every 100 meters or so.

[Robittybob1]

His DNA.

Do you mean remove his DNA from the crime scene?

[Brietta]

Why IMO are your posts so dramatic and seeing things what are not there.

I have no interest in CB humane rights whatsoever or defending him in any way ..they are your words not mine......

I do not believe the mccs abduction senario so why would  I believe CB is the abducter.

As for Justification B, the day I have to explaine myself to you is the day I will give up.

You've actually got it quite wrong as post after post proves.

The Policia Judiciaria in their final report found no evidence against the McCanns.

The Portuguese Prosecutors have detailed in their archiving document that the 'evidence' which was used to make the McCanns arguidos was not evidence at all.

Apparently you seem to think you know better than British, Portuguese and German police who after many years of investigation now have Brueckner as their prime suspect in Madeleine McCann's abduction.

Please note ... Madeleine's parents have no locus in deciding what investigative strategy the police choose to follow or who the police have evidence enough to make suspects in a crime. 
So don't you think it is time to give up on this absolute nonsense of "the mccs abduction senario (sic)".  Which is nothing at all to do with the McCanns.

In reality it is the German police scenario - the British police scenario - the Portuguese police scenario. 

Which answers the question you have posed.

There is no evidence circumstantial or otherwise regarding Madeleine's parents ~ but there is sufficient evidence to make Brueckner the prime suspect in Madeleine's disappearance.

[Vertigo Swirl]

There'll be one every 100 meters or so.

Do you have a cite for this?