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

[Eleanor]

Just because you think it is tripe doesn't mean it is.

You rubbish everything that goes against abduction anyway.

You should start thinking maybe you have been taken in by what CW has tried to convince the public with.


Afterall as I have said before that is what prosecutors are trained to do ..convince public/jury or whoever the audience is.

I despair sometimes.

[Vertigo Swirl]

Just because you think it is tripe doesn't mean it is.

You rubbish everything that goes against abduction anyway.

You should start thinking maybe you have been taken in by what CW has tried to convince the public with.


Afterall as I have said before that is what prosecutors are trained to do ..convince public/jury or whoever the audience is.

That is not what the Public prosecutor role is for, suggest you read up on it.

[barrier]

I despair sometimes.

Keep the faith, it might escalate to be all the time.

[Mr Gray]

Just because you think it is tripe doesn't mean it is.

You rubbish everything that goes against abduction anyway.

You should start thinking maybe you have been taken in by what CW has tried to convince the public with.


Afterall as I have said before that is what prosecutors are trained to do ..convince public/jury or whoever the audience is.

An article in the Sun.....with a source that calims to be close to the investigation in PDL...and you cant see taht is tripe. FF himself has said from his FB page that ther eare no UK lawyers....just more tripe from the rags.

Im not easily fooled......see HCW as  areliable source of information

[faithlilly]

Images... videos on memory stick

They would have to be ones of the poor child dead as Wolter has said that Madeleine was killed. If he has images like that connected to Brueckner then it’s a slam dunk so why isn’t he charging him ?

[Mr Gray]

They would have to be ones of the poor child dead as Wolter has said that Madeleine was killed. If he has images like that connected to Brueckner then it’s a slam dunk so why isn’t he charging him ?

I think.....because he ha sthe images found at CBs property .....but no definite link to XCB in the images. So proof of abduction

[Eleanor]

They would have to be ones of the poor child dead as Wolter has said that Madeleine was killed. If he has images like that connected to Brueckner then it’s a slam dunk so why isn’t he charging him ?

What could be a sleeping child could be hard to define as dead,  in a photograph some short hours after.

I seriously don't want to think about this.  And I very much doubt that The Public at large will ever be shown any photos.

Either a Judge or a Jury would have to decide.

This is just an observation and not an opinion.

[faithlilly]

What could be a sleeping child could be hard to define as dead,  in a photograph some short hours after.

I seriously don't want to think about this.  And I very much doubt that The Public at large will ever be shown any photos.

Either a Judge or a Jury would have to decide.

This is just an observation and not an opinion.

I can’t disagree with any of that but it would be that Brueckner had a photograph of Madeleine that would be important and if that is the evidence Wolter had Brueckner would have been questioned, and possibly charged, by now....and anyone who thinks that’s not the way things would have unfolded has no understanding of the judicial process.

[Eleanor]

I can’t disagree with any of that but it would be that Brueckner had a photograph of Madeleine that would be important and if that is the evidence Wolter had Brueckner would have been questioned, and possibly charged, by now....and anyone who thinks that’s not the way things would have unfolded has no understanding of the judicial process.

There could be two charges here.  Abduction and then Murder.  Wolters might be able to prove Abduction but not Murder, at this point.

I don't know.  But it is you who has no real understanding of The Judicial Process.  Why would Wolters just go for Abduction if he thinks he can get Brueckner on both.

Brueckner is now locked up until 2024 so what would be the hurry?

[faithlilly]

There could be two charges here.  Abduction and then Murder.  Wolters might be able to prove Abduction but not Murder, at this point.

I don't know.  But it is you who has no real understanding of The Judicial Process.  Why would Wolters just go for Abduction if he thinks he can get Brueckner on both.

Brueckner is now locked up until 2024 so what would be the hurry?

Why the appeal for information now then ?

So you don’t think Wolter has enough evidence to say Madeleine was murdered by Brueckner ? Why do you think he’s saying he has then ?

[Vertigo Swirl]

Say the evidence was
1) a picture of Madeleine being abused by an unidentifiable person found in CB’s stash
2) dark web internet chat from CB to another bragging about abducting and abusing  and murdering an unnamed  child

would members here consider that that was enough evidence to prove beyond doubt that CB did the crime?

[Mr Gray]

Say the evidence was
1) a picture of Madeleine being abused by an unidentifiable person found in CB’s stash
2) dark web internet chat from CB to another bragging about abducting and abusing  and murdering an unnamed  child

would members here consider that that was enough evidence to prove beyond doubt that CB did the crime?

Probably not...it would prove an abduction and show sceptics have been wrong for all these years...but needs a bit more to prove the link

[Wonderfulspam]

Say the evidence was
1) a picture of Madeleine being abused by an unidentifiable person found in CB’s stash
2) dark web internet chat from CB to another bragging about abducting and abusing  and murdering an unnamed  child

would members here consider that that was enough evidence to prove beyond doubt that CB did the crime?

No.

[jassi]

I thought the very nature of the Dark Web was that it ensured anonymity

[Vertigo Swirl]

Probably not...it would prove an abduction and show sceptics have been wrong for all these years...but needs a bit more to prove the link

Exactly.  It would be compelling evidence but would not be enough to secure a conviction.  It would be interesting to read the “just because” arguments put forward by his defenders to explain how “just because he has a picture of Madeleine being abused” and “just because he bragged about abducting and killing a child” and just because he was in PdL the night Madeleine went missing” doesn’t mean he committed the crime.