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

[kizzy]

Actually they didn't.  So your opinion that they did is rather off the mark.

Did I forget to mention that everything Amaral's investigation had thought was evidence which was used to make the McCanns arguidos was proved otherwise by the Policia Judiciaria and gives a huge clue as to why he is pushing the notion of Brueckner as a 'scapegoat'.


So in other words that is only IYO...that could also be way off the mark

[G-Unit]

Did I forget to mention that everything Amaral's investigation had thought was evidence which was used to make the McCanns arguidos was proved otherwise by the Policia Judiciaria and gives a huge clue as to why he is pushing the notion of Brueckner as a 'scapegoat'.


So in other words that is only IYO...that could also be way off the mark

everything Amaral's investigation had thought was evidence which was used to make the McCanns arguidos was proved otherwise

That's a bit of a sweeping statement. It would depend what the poster means by 'evidence' and 'proved' in my opinion.

[Mr Gray]

everything Amaral's investigation had thought was evidence which was used to make the McCanns arguidos was proved otherwise

That's a bit of a sweeping statement. It would depend what the poster means by 'evidence' and 'proved' in my opinion.

None of the indications used to make the parents arguido were eventually confirmed...that's quite clear.

[Brietta]

Did I forget to mention that everything Amaral's investigation had thought was evidence which was used to make the McCanns arguidos was proved otherwise by the Policia Judiciaria and gives a huge clue as to why he is pushing the notion of Brueckner as a 'scapegoat'.


So in other words that is only IYO...that could also be way off the mark

It is not my opinion it is the opinion of the Policia Judiciaria ... haven't you read the policia Judicairia's Final Report?

[Brietta]

everything Amaral's investigation had thought was evidence which was used to make the McCanns arguidos was proved otherwise

That's a bit of a sweeping statement. It would depend what the poster means by 'evidence' and 'proved' in my opinion.

It depends very much on what the Policia Judiciaria "mean by evidence".  So now's your chance to tell us what evidence you think they missed that incriminates the McCanns.

I await your response with interest.

[G-Unit]

None of the indications used to make the parents arguido were eventually confirmed...that's quite clear.

Are indications evidence?

[Mr Gray]

Are indications evidence?

What else would they be. Look at what were classed as the indications..

[G-Unit]

It depends very much on what the Policia Judiciaria "mean by evidence".  So now's your chance to tell us what evidence you think they missed that incriminates the McCanns.

I await your response with interest.

I disagree. You claimed that "everything Amaral's investigation had thought was evidence which was used to make the McCanns arguidos was proved otherwise", so it's you who needs to explain. If you know it was 'proved otherwise' you must know what it was and how it was 'proved otherwise'. Unless that was an opinion, of course.

[Mr Gray]

I disagree. You claimed that "everything Amaral's investigation had thought was evidence which was used to make the McCanns arguidos was proved otherwise", so it's you who needs to explain. If you know it was 'proved otherwise' you must know what it was and how it was 'proved otherwise'. Unless that was an opinion, of course.

indication is  a synonym for evidence... according to the Guardian Almeida testified at the libel trial that the main evince against the McCanns was the  alerts. The archiving despatch also mentions the alerts as one of the indications(evidence)

[Brietta]

I disagree. You claimed that "everything Amaral's investigation had thought was evidence which was used to make the McCanns arguidos was proved otherwise", so it's you who needs to explain. If you know it was 'proved otherwise' you must know what it was and how it was 'proved otherwise'. Unless that was an opinion, of course.

Quite simply ~ it is obvious that you are unable to come up with any evidence against the McCanns ~ the reason I am posting that as a fact is if there was any there would be nothing to prevent you posting it.

[G-Unit]

Quite simply ~ it is obvious that you are unable to come up with any evidence against the McCanns ~ the reason I am posting that as a fact is if there was any there would be nothing to prevent you posting it.

It wasn't me who brought up the subjects of evidence and proof, both of which lack an agreed definition. Obviously you've no intention of explaining your post so clearly it was an opinion being posted as fact.

In my opinion it's quite acceptable for police to see many indications leading towards a possible answer in a case. In the end the PJ were unable to find definitive evidence to charge their suspects. They were indeed unable to confirm the indications were correct, but that's not the same as proving them groundless or non existent imo.

[Mr Gray]

It wasn't me who brought up the subjects of evidence and proof, both of which lack an agreed definition. Obviously you've no intention of explaining your post so clearly it was an opinion being posted as fact.

In my opinion it's quite acceptable for police to see many indications leading towards a possible answer in a case. In the end the PJ were unable to find definitive evidence to charge their suspects. They were indeed unable to confirm the indications were correct, but that's not the same as proving them groundless or non existent imo.

If the police accusations are not supported by evidence then by definition they are groundless

[Vertigo Swirl]

It wasn't me who brought up the subjects of evidence and proof, both of which lack an agreed definition. Obviously you've no intention of explaining your post so clearly it was an opinion being posted as fact.

In my opinion it's quite acceptable for police to see many indications leading towards a possible answer in a case. In the end the PJ were unable to find definitive evidence to charge their suspects. They were indeed unable to confirm the indications were correct, but that's not the same as proving them groundless or non existent imo.

Does that go for the German investigation and CB too then?

[G-Unit]

Does that go for the German investigation and CB too then?

Naturally. Whatever has triggered their suspicions they need more. If they don't get it it doesn't mean they have disproved whatever they have, it means it's not enough to charge their suspect.

[faithlilly]

It wasn't me who brought up the subjects of evidence and proof, both of which lack an agreed definition. Obviously you've no intention of explaining your post so clearly it was an opinion being posted as fact.

In my opinion it's quite acceptable for police to see many indications leading towards a possible answer in a case. In the end the PJ were unable to find definitive evidence to charge their suspects. They were indeed unable to confirm the indications were correct, but that's not the same as proving them groundless or non existent imo.

Much the same position as with Bruckner now.

If, as seems likely, the investigation of Brueckner is dropped, it will exactly mirror that of the parents.....indications but no proof.