Mark Williams-Thomas making new three part crime series for Ch5.

[Eleanor]

Maybe busy writing his memoirs.

Let's hope it's a bit more honest than The Truth of The Lie.  Although I somewhat doubt that it would be.

[Mr Gray]

No exoneration required. Even Fulscher doesn't work to that particular burden of proof. He, and I, for the sake of the forum replies, merely have to introduce reasonable doubt. In my case, I just have to have the opinion of reasonable doubt, as that's the legal standard we are currently working to.
I know there's no jury, but we're not at trial.

It all depends on what evidence the prosecution  has.
Having said that you explain why Wolters wants to take his time and build a watertight case

[Mr Gray]

How you managed to deduce those two elements prior to reading Corner's book, frankly defies belief.

I take it you are being sarcastic

[Mr Gray]

On this forum, those who don't condone the rights of CB support convicted child murderers, the Ciprianos.

Cipriano was a, suspect when beaten

[Wonderfulspam]

Cipriano was a, suspect when beaten

Cipriano is a child murderer & you support her.

[The General]

so, to recap: in your opinion he obviously didn’t do it but it’s possible he did, thanks for the clarification.

No. He didn't do it in my opinion, as there's plenty of reasonable doubt. You asked 'is there a chance he was involved?' That's a different position to 'it's possible he did it'.
'Involved' could mean anything, from being someone who points out an open door or window (probably not window), right through to occulation of a corpse, to disrupting the course of justice, to conspiracy, to aiding and abetting, to destroying evidence. Involved. Could mean almost anything and, given his obvious criminal activities in the environs, there's a chance he was involved. A slim chance.

[jassi]

Let's hope it's a bit more honest than The Truth of The Lie.  Although I somewhat doubt that it would be.

I wouldn't read any such memoir, so contents would be of no concern to me.

[Mr Gray]

Cipriano is a child murderer & you support her.

I don't support child murderers

[Wonderfulspam]

I don't support child murderers

You do if you support the Ciprianos.

And you do support the Ciprianos, & they're child murders.

[Eleanor]

I wouldn't read any such memoir, so contents would be of no concern to me.

I would probably just read Comments.  But it might make a few bob and certainly make food for discussion. 

Some of us have long memories of past Court Decisions before Madeleine was even heard of.

[Eleanor]

You do if you support the Ciprianos.

And you do support the Ciprianos, & they're child murders.

While you support the beating of suspects to gain a confession.  And then use that to stitch up other innocent parties.

[Wonderfulspam]

While you support the beating of suspects to gain a confession.  And then use that to stitch up other innocent parties.

A beating isn't as bad as the murder of a child which is what you support.

[Mr Gray]

You do if you support the Ciprianos.

And you do support the Ciprianos, & they're child murders.

Whatever.. I don't think they are.. But we've been through it before

[Vertigo Swirl]

No. He didn't do it in my opinion, as there's plenty of reasonable doubt. You asked 'is there a chance he was involved?' That's a different position to 'it's possible he did it'.
'Involved' could mean anything, from being someone who points out an open door or window (probably not window), right through to occulation of a corpse, to disrupting the course of justice, to conspiracy, to aiding and abetting, to destroying evidence. Involved. Could mean almost anything and, given his obvious criminal activities in the environs, there's a chance he was involved. A slim chance.

Why is that chance only “slim” in your estimation?  Genuinely interested to know how you’ve managed to weigh the chances of his involvement and also how you arrived at your apparent certainty that he did not kidnap Madeleine and murder her.  Surely it’s not possible to rule someone out simply on the basis of the length of time a person is held in suspicion, nor on the basis that a couple of his shady mates have dobbed him in it.   It is of course possible to shelf an investigation into someone on the basis of insufficient evidence but that’s something different, it doesn’t mean they obviously didn’t do it (as I’m sure you’d agree re: the McCanns).

[Wonderfulspam]

Whatever.. I don't think they are.. But we've been through it before

Why?

Which of their versions do you find most credible?

Selling her to Gypsies or that the innoccent mother had no credit & that's why she didn't phone the police?

Difficult, I know, both do sound very convincing.