More recent events related to Madeleine McCann's case

[Billy Whizz Fan Club]

A flatmate lends me his expensive camera.  He then accuses me of stealing it and goes to the police.  How do I prove beyond reasonable doubt that I didn’t steal it?  I know I didn’t steal it but can’t prove my flatmate is lying.

That's turning things on their head!!!! It's not for you to prove you didn't steal the camera (that's impossible - unless you have a recording of their conversation). Your flatmate has to prove you did steal it... In the same way Wolters has to prove CB killed MM. CB doesn't have to prove he didn't.

[Mr Gray]

What makes you know this particular person stole from you? You stated that you would tell us.

I will tell now. I wanted to make the point that you felt it was impossible...

I know because she admitted it to me and agreed to pay it back. The police were involved and insisted it was dealt with by a community resolution... I think thats the term.

When the police interviwed her she denied everything...

[Vertigo Swirl]

That's turning things on their head!!!! It's not for you to prove you didn't steal the camera (that's impossible - unless you have a recording of their conversation). Your flatmate has to prove you did steal it... In the same way Wolters has to prove CB killed MM. CB doesn't have to prove he didn't.

I provided you with a valid example of knowing something to be true but being unable to prove it.   OK, try this one instead:
My flatmate stole my expensive camera.  When I reported him to the police he claimed I lent it to him.  I know he’s a liar and a thief but I can’t prove it beyond reasonable doubt.

[Billy Whizz Fan Club]

I will tell now. I wanted to make the point that you felt it was impossible...

I know because she admitted it to me and agreed to pay it back. The police were involved and insisted it was dealt with by a community resolution... I think thats the term.

When the police interviwed her she denied everything...

When the Police were first involved had she paid the money back and did she tell them that or you? Was it money that was stolen? Is it possible she lied to you in the first instance? And you don't actually know she stole from you. You just  believe her when she said she told you she had.ecent events related to

Also this has no bearing on CB and MM. She has not been returned (or found) after a confession. Wolters obviously believes CB is guilty - but it seems that, as fas as we know, Wolters doesn't have enough evidence to substantiate his belief beyond all reasonable doubt.

[Billy Whizz Fan Club]

I provided you with a valid example of knowing something to be true but being unable to prove it.   OK, try this one instead:
My flatmate stole my expensive camera.  When I reported him to the police he claimed I lent it to him.  I know he’s a liar and a thief but I can’t prove it beyond reasonable doubt.

I would suggest that maybe you could. Otherwise there would not be many convictions for theft if claiming something was borrowed was such a rock solid defence!!

[Billy Whizz Fan Club]

I would suggest that maybe you could. Otherwise there would not be many convictions for theft if claiming something was borrowed was such a rock solid defence!!

You might find this interesting:
https://blogs.findlaw.com/blotter/2013/08/when-does-borrowing-become-stealing.html

[Vertigo Swirl]

I would suggest that maybe you could. Otherwise there would not be many convictions for theft if claiming something was borrowed was such a rock solid defence!!

I doubt there are many such convictions but perhaps you could give me an example of incontrovertible evidence that my flatmate stole my camera, instead of being lent it by myself as he claims.  See also the rape victim making  a claim against an agressor.  They may know as fact that they did not consent but may also not have incontrovertible evidence to prove it.   How does Clement Freud’s alleged victim prove now beyond all reasonable doubt that he molested her as a child?  She may know he is guilty but may not be able to prove it.  In short it is very possible to know someone is guilty but be unable to provide rock solid evidence, as I said.  See also Davel’s example.

[G-Unit]

I doubt there are many such convictions but perhaps you could give me an example of incontrovertible evidence that my flatmate stole my camera, instead of being lent it by myself as he claims.  See also the rape victim making  a claim against an agressor.  They may know as fact that they did not consent but may also not have incontrovertible evidence to prove it.   How does Clement Freud’s alleged victim prove now beyond all reasonable doubt that he molested her as a child?  She may know he is guilty but may not be able to prove it.  In short it is very possible to know someone is guilty but be unable to provide rock solid evidence, as I said.  See also Davel’s example.

I don't know why this point keeps cropping up. It doesn't matter what someone knows, it's what can be proved in a court of law that matters.

[Vertigo Swirl]

I would suggest you research the case of the submarine murder in Sweden in which there was a mountain of circumstantial evidence against the suspect.  The police knew he was the killer but could not find the incontrovertible evidence proving intent to kill for many many months of investigating. . 

[Vertigo Swirl]

I don't know why this point keeps cropping up. It doesn't matter what someone knows, it's what can be proved in a court of law that matters.

It cropped up because Billy Whizz asked me to substantiate my claim that it is possible to know something as fact  without having proof to back it up.  I suggest you read back before criticising me.

[Vertigo Swirl]

When the Police were first involved had she paid the money back and did she tell them that or you? Was it money that was stolen? Is it possible she lied to you in the first instance? And you don't actually know she stole from you. You just  believe her when she said she told you she had.ecent events related to

Also this has no bearing on CB and MM. She has not been returned (or found) after a confession. Wolters obviously believes CB is guilty - but it seems that, as fas as we know, Wolters doesn't have enough evidence to substantiate his belief beyond all reasonable doubt.

Interesting questions.  Based on this I assume you don’t accept the verdict of guilty against the Ciprianos, that their guilt was not incontrovertibly proven?

[G-Unit]

It cropped up because Billy Whizz asked me to substantiate my claim that it is possible to know something as fact  without having proof to back it up.  I suggest you read back before criticising me.

OK. So people can't always prove what they know to be true. So what? Why is that interesting or relevant?

[Vertigo Swirl]

OK. So people can't always prove what they know to be true. So what? Why is that interesting or relevant?

Read back.

[G-Unit]

Read back.

It seems to be connected to Wolters, but what he knows doesn't matter a jot if he can't prove it.

[Vertigo Swirl]

It seems to be connected to Wolters, but what he knows doesn't matter a jot if he can't prove it.

Twll us something we don’t know.